As a stunned Mumbai and India reeled at the reality of this last violent attack, there was, mercifully, no provocation and bloodletting on the streets. Angry Mumbaikars did not get drawn into a cycle of mindless anger and revenge. This time.

There was much celebration of the spirit of Mumbai and its resilience in the face of disaster. Even as the tired face of this label, the Mumbaikar, retreated into normalcy, forced back by the everyday syndrome of travel, work and home, local television channels continued to relay, form and re-form images and perceptions. But long before a reeling and overburdened Mumbai had limped completely back to normal, other images – of the police combing areas and making arrests – flashed past. The Anti-Terrorism Squad going into overdrive, eager to pin blame after the flak it had received for failing to detect the blasts in advance.

There were other images too, of politicians reacting to the incidents. Union home minister, Shivraj Patil, and UPA chairperson, Sonia Gandhi, arriving on the night of July 11 to visit blast victims. Bal Thackeray grabbing newspaper headlines as he repeated his allegations that Bangladeshi infiltration was the root cause of terror. Raj Thackeray, never far behind, threatening any advocate who dared to defend the accused. Advocate Niteen Pradhan, who has appeared for 22 accused in the 1993 blasts cases (including 14 who are directly connected through evidence to the crime), responding to this demand. (Pradhan discharged himself as advocate for the accused in the 1993 blasts in all except one case. He conveniently continues to appear for international don, Abu Salem!) Within days of the July blasts, Judge PD Kode promised to deliver the much awaited verdict in the 1993 case. Organisations, Muslim and non-Muslim, were vocal in condemning the blasts, but even as Muslim religious clergy played a visible role in protests against the latest terrorist attacks, accusations of community profiling qualified the protest to some extent.

Statements by local politicians, the Thackerays, followed by Advocate Niteen Pradhan’s actions and Judge Kode’s announcement. A connection to the 1993 scenario was directly made. The stark missing link, in the images perceived and relayed, was the events that had preceded the 1993 blasts. The December 6, 1992 broad daylight demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya and the subsequent unleashing of targeted violence against the Muslim minority. Through long weeks in December 1992 and January 1993, Mumbai, then Bombay, had allowed the bloodletting. It was a connection drawn by Justice Srikrishna himself when he linked the mob violence to the bomb blasts as cause and effect. To date, the guilty have not only gone unpunished but in violation of the recommendations of the Justice BN Srikrishna Commission (appointed to investigate the violence of 1992-1993), prosecutions against criminals in and out of uniform have been thwarted (see accompanying piece, "No peace without justice"). The state had demonstrated scant regard for its moral and constitutional duty to be non-partisan and singularly failed to protect the lives and properties of a section of its citizens, the minorities.

But if the minority has a legitimate grouse, the majority also feels let down. "Our government is not taking strong enough steps to protect citizens," says Meena Bedekar (name changed), sister of a 44-year-old banker whose life was so cruelly snuffed out on July 11. "How come these people get in? Is it because of the corruption in the police that the criminals get away?" This voice reflects yet another image that has emerged in the face of the recent terror attacks. Television channels and opinion pages suddenly started sporting ‘the theory of hot pursuit’, saying that Israel’s worldview and attitude, a harsh aggressive state, was the only answer. Indians, at least those with access to television channels and the Internet, demanded that peace talks with Pakistan be called off.

The over 200 blast victims, commuters on the Western Railway line, belonged to different communities, all part of the mosaic that makes up Mumbai. Within hours of the blasts, compensation amounts from the state and central governments were announced, with the railway ministry also offering compensation and the possibility of a job each to family members of the deceased. The payment of compensation to victim families was prompt as compared to what followed after last year’s flood or other man-made disasters. The state government offered to write off all medical expenses. Insurance companies too delivered policy claims to victim families with minimal paperwork.

A significant number of diamond merchants from the far-off western suburbs of Borivli and Kandivli (the trains were bound in that direction) gave vent to the feeling that the better off Gujarati community was the terrorists’ main target. Vocal about their feelings of vulnerability as specific targets of terror, their concerns were immediately picked up by the home minister who was quick to reassure them.

However, some Gujarati businessmen who are regular commuters in the first class railway compartments have altered their mode of travel after July 11. "The economic prosperity of the country is the main motive and they envy our growth and success rate," says Niranjanbhai, a relative of one of the deceased. What is the solution? Where do we go from here? "We have to be more vigilant and security conscious. We are not used to security procedures in our lives. We will have to get used to it," he says. How do we nail the terrorists? "The government must look at national security above all else. We should be careful while letting people enter the country."

Director General of Police (DGP) PS Pasricha echoes this sentiment. He is also clear that the police are on the right track. Of those arrested, 10 have been named directly for their part in the blasts and five in connection with related offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which also concern activities and organisations linked in some way, as part of a wider jigsaw puzzle. "The only problem is that we have yet to get the connecting links. Not one of those arrested is innocent."

"The threat is very real. There are active modules and sleeper modules. The attack and threat is on India, not Mumbai alone. There are three or four common faces of all those arrested: They are ISI agents; they have trained across the border; they have brought material from Kathmandu. The manpower and material has come via Kathmandu. It is a full-fledged proxy war that will require all of society to gear up. Our society will have to develop a security culture. School children in schools, intercoms in flats, CCTVs, all these gadgets will now become part of our lives. They will cost some but it will be well worth it in the long run."

More than a month into post-blast Mumbai, has the beard and topi – the skullcap – become the face of terror? How real is the alienation and discrimination experienced by the Muslim in Mumbai and India today?

Multiple images display multiple faces of reality. As I traversed different spaces in Mumbai, residential and professional, and soaked up conversations with layperson and policeman, Hindu, Christian and Muslim, women and men, opposite perceptions surfaced. Some part real, some part imagined.

Moments after July 11, rigorous efforts were made by the political leadership, central and state, to ensure that no community profiling would follow. "Terrorism has no religion" was the message sent down from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and union home minister, Shivraj Patil, to the administration in Maharashtra. Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh, normally reticent at moments of crisis, was also vocal in this regard.

Swinging into action mode, Commissioner of Police (CP) AN Roy made efforts to reach out to the community, conducting regular meetings and even launching a public awareness campaign through hoardings and banners all over the city. One message reads: "Waqt nahin hai ungli uthaana, waqt hai ek doosren ka hath thamna (This is not the time to lift a finger in blame, this is the time to reach out to one another)." Communal harmony and unity is the only answer to the divisive plot of the terrorist. The 40,000-member police force in Mumbai is already stretched to the limit. Close on the heels of the blasts, the festival season has begun and for another six weeks an overstretched force must cope with the additional pressure and strain.

But how far has this directive for non-partisan functioning, delivered from the top, percolated to the functioning of the police administration at the local police station level?

Even as Roy conducted community meetings, three youth, travelling on the same Western Railway line where the bomb blasts had taken place, were thrashed; one had his ribs broken. His offence: he sported the face of the terrorist. This time the police was quick to register the offence. What is critical, however, is whether the cases are pursued and the guilty are punished. While CP AN Roy and DGP PS Pasricha have expressed their openness to a prompt review of any complaint of ‘aberrations’, the state – including its investigating agency, the police – is reluctant to allow the institutionalisation of such procedures.

As a result, a growing divide and the perception of selective treatment gains ground. "We have no problem with the vast non-Muslim population, sirf police aur administration ko theek karo (just clean up the police and administration)," say Muslim businessmen from Musafirkhana. Dr Anwar, a member of the Bombay Aman Committee, vigorously agrees. Muslim residents of Jogeshwari (west) and small businessmen from Mumbra, an adjunct of the Thane Municipal Corporation, are in complete agreement.

On deeper probing about the community’s role in helping the administration, Dr Anwar admitted that the Muslim community was severely limited by orthodoxy and a lack of unity. He said, however, that the real way was to spread the message of true Islam. "Islam is and never has been for violence and this message needs to go out."

As Mumbai awaits the verdict in the bomb blasts case, Farhana Shah, the advocate who has appeared as amicus curiae and then for the accused in the Bombay blasts case of 1993, is positive that the verdict will be fair and just. There are 123 accused of whom 94 are on bail and 29 are still in custody. A huge part of Shah’s life as an advocate has been spent muddying her hands in this sensitive case. The paperwork alone includes 14,000 pages of evidence, not to mention a total of 40,000 pages of documents on record that have a bearing on the trial. As if that were not enough, she has also filed a private complaint against Dawood Ibrahim’s aide, Iqbal Mirchi, for illegal constructions in 2004.

"After the initial hesitation in granting bail (the first bail application was acceded to in 1995) and a continuing reluctance to exempt the accused from attending the hearing on a day-to-day basis when the trial was on, the court has not only been by and large fair in its dealing with this sensitive case but also justified in this delay in the judgement," says Shah. There was just too much evidence to sift through and too many related matters that surfaced through the trial. She also adds that the court has been judicious in singling out those 29 who are still in custody, accused of actually planting the explosives and charged under Section 3 (2) of TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act) where the punishment is capital punishment or life imprisonment. "As of today a case has been made out against them. I have total faith in the judiciary and the almighty that the outcome will be fair and just."

The problem lies elsewhere, she says. In the deep-rooted prejudice displayed by the state and its prosecution (the public prosecutor) as well as its investigating agency (the police). "It is the prosecutor who consistently opposes bail applications and applications for exemption from hearings on humanitarian grounds." This is what evokes the deepest resentment among the accused and their families and filters through to the wider community. The feeling has gained ground that even for humanitarian reasons, when near and dear ones are seriously ill etc., the right to even limited freedoms is denied. Conversely, non-Muslims accused of other acts of terror roam scot-free.

Shah first appeared as amicus curiae in this case, having been appointed to the post by Judge JN Patel who has since been elevated to the high court. She appeared for Janu Kamlya Wetkoli who had been dragged into the proceedings unfairly. Wetkoli, a small boat owner from Shekhadi near Raigad, was told to transport some cartons by accused Shabbir Kadri, who accompanied him. Promised Rs 300 for the task, Wetkoli did not know what the cartons contained and was completely unaware of the magnitude of the crime being executed; he was wrongly roped in by the accused. Called in as a witness later in the proceedings, Wetkoli was discharged on May 5, 1994.

For Farhana Shah, who has displayed great sagacity in dealing with what could be an extremely divisive case, the issue of discriminatory justice is real and valid. "We see that when arrests are made the families of people from the minority community are kept more in the dark than those of other accused." Though by and large the political leadership has been prudent in sending out the right message after July 11, there are strong rumours that at the local thana level the police is raking up old animosities and even using masjids and jamaats to conveniently profile educated Muslims. I heard complaints of such queries being made at the Mahim masjid and dargah where the mosque authorities were asked to provide a list of educated persons, in their knowledge, who came to offer prayers regularly. Following complaints to top authorities, these queries have stopped. But in a vast city like Mumbai where police stations are poorly monitored, and with the growing divide in people’s perceptions, there is reason to believe that months into the post-7/11 scenario, once individuals and groups tire of their vigilance, such harassment and profiling may continue. "If such attempts at profiling continue (today sections of the Muslim population do experience greater vulnerability), is there not a likely chance that feelings of victimhood will grow? Are we not then creating yet another brand of terrorists?" asks Farid Batawala, of the Muslim Front and also at the forefront of the Mohalla committee movement in Jogeshwari (west).

DGP Pasricha disagrees. "We have made every effort from the start to ensure that there is no religious profiling. As a Sikh officer I know what the Sikhs went through in the ’80s. The Khalistan movement, Operation Bluestar, the assassination of former prime minister, Indira Gandhi. There is guilt when anyone looks at you. We have been through this once and we do not want to create more terrorists."

Admitting that state action can result in alienation, Pasricha is however adamant that the police are on the right track and there have been no major misdemeanours.

Farhana Shah is now appearing for at least two of those accused in the July 11 blasts in Mumbai – Danish, a journalist from Urdu Times, and Dr Imran, a doctor and graduate from the KEM hospital. Imran’s brother, 22-year-old Irfan, remains in custody. Imran speaks hesitatingly about the torture and verbal abuse he was subjected to during the few days he was held in custody before his release. He could hear his brother in the nearby cell, screaming with pain. Imran was picked up allegedly because of old animosity with a fellow Muslim whom he had complained against before the state human rights commission. That individual used his connections with the police to get him arrested and harassed. He was abused and asked to produce a ‘CD’. When he claimed ignorance of the same, he was beaten with the ‘satyashodhak belt’ and told that if nothing else he was bound to possess a pornographic CD since he, as ‘a Mussalman, though circumcised, had a lot of sexual aggression’. The man remains traumatised to this day. Samajwadi Party leader Abu Asim Azmi alleges that similar methods of torture were used on Ati-ur-Rehman, another accused, and family members of other accused, Mushtaqueen and Faizal.

Ehteshaam Siddiqui, a resident of Mira Road-Bhayander, who the police now claim was closely involved in the whole operation, was reportedly beaten mercilessly before a confession was extracted (The Times of India). The police deny this.

On August 14, 2006 when three accused, Kamal Ahmed Ansari (who was arrested in or near Nepal), Imran and Najeeb, were brought to the sessions court for an extension of remand, it was visibly apparent that Ansari had been badly tortured and was in great pain. But knowing that he had to go back to the same police, he was silent, reluctant to say a word. Seeing Ansari in evident pain, Judge AM Garde asked him whether he had been tortured. He simply said that he had an acute pain in his ear whereupon the judge ordered a medical examination and Ansari was given some treatment for the ear. And that was that.

Do such crimes help to institutionalise torture when there is already a desire to punish a certain section of the people and a silent complicity in the state machinery?

Both Mobeen Solkar, advocate, Mumbai, and Farhana Shah believe that the accused are reluctant to speak of torture because of the continuing control the police exercises over their lives. Equally, lawyers for the accused are severely limited by the practice the police have developed of extending remand periods interminably and the fact that the police rarely observe the prerequisite of producing the accused before a court within 24 hours, a necessary requirement in law.

In a city on edge, with citizens and authorities all trying to cope with life after the blasts, it is our task to monitor individual complaints even as we push the authorities to institutionalise a transparent system of arrests and detention and interrogation. While being sensitive to the magnitude of the crimes being dealt with, the hardest task is to insist on both humane policing and policy measures to reduce alienation. Equitable justice and development are sure steps in that direction.

Though Roy has made consistent efforts to reach out after 7/11 and reassure Muslim religious and social leaders that the police was clear that terrorism has no faith, he battles against a two-decade-long and deeply ingrained prejudice against the minority which has contributed to a unidimensional attitude among large sections of Muslims towards the police. An overall reluctance by the state and its machinery to accept that such institutional bias has governed police inaction and complicity (hard evidence of which has also been provided by the Srikrishna Commission report) makes a generally fraught and complicated situation even more difficult.

Along with a deep sense of alienation (which for the Mumbai Muslim is rooted in the 1992-1993 violence where he was a mute recipient of targeted hate speech and violence and for which he is, today, still to get justice) is the near certain conviction that justice delivery in this country is one-sided. Weeks after the World Trade Centre bombings in 2001, SIMI (the Students Islamic Movement of India) was banned in India. At the time, at an all-state director generals of police conference, former deputy prime minister and home minister, LK Advani, was shocked when men in uniform demanded the simultaneous banning of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal. ‘They are outfits that generate internal terror’ and also need to be reined in, was the official view, one articulated by rights groups years before.

Discriminatory justice and a sense of being selectively victimised are a potent mix. They have led to a near unanimous perception among large sections of Mumbai’s Muslims that there is no fair play here. "Atankwaad ko sahmati denewale Mussalman, Chale Jao Pakistan (Muslim supporters of terrorism, Go to Pakistan)." Within ten days of the recent blasts, these posters were plastered on neighbourhood walls in the five police station areas of Jogeshwari, Curry Road, Masjid and Andheri. Immediate alerts to the police saw their removal. To instil faith in the city’s minorities, it is crucial that the police declare stringent action against the offenders and make this action public.

Just days before the blasts that tore once more at Mumbai’s civic fabric, two incidents fit perfectly into this fractured paradigm of reality and prejudice: one at Shivaji Park when Shiv Sainiks went on the rampage, and the other some days before, in nearby Bhiwandi, where a police lathi-charge on Muslims offering thanksgiving prayers for rain led to a counter-attack in which three policemen were fatally wounded. In Bhiwandi the background issue concerned some graveyard land where the police sought to build a police chowky. Throw in administrative arrogance and police action, fuelled by incendiary speeches from a section of the Muslim leadership, the death of the policemen and the subsequent death of four civilians whom the police shot, point-blank – What do you get?

A remark by Maharashtra’s home minister, RR Patil, says it all. "Anyone who (dares to) lift so much as a stone on the police will be responded to with bullets," he thundered. Three days later when Shiv Sainiks violated the public peace in Mumbai, Akola and other parts of Maharashtra, television images showed a mute and impotent police force reluctant to act against these violators of the law. Sounds familiar? The state chief minister was quick to sympathise with those on the rampage, sharing their hurt sentiments. His words only confirmed the state’s soft approach to one set of criminal offenders. The home minister stayed silent.

Even as Mumbai and Mumbaikars maintained a stoic calm on and after July 11, is there no anger simmering at the surface? "So far so good," says Kumar Ketkar, editor, Loksatta, one of the state’s largest circulating Marathi dailies. Ketkar is a seasoned commentator on Maharashtra and its politics. "But I feel if there is so much as a suggestion of another incident of this kind, feelings will explode. There is a lot of bottled up anger inside."

Social workers and activists working in lower middle class areas agree with this assessment. "Though people are not openly saying anything, there is a pent up anger inside," says Ujwala, who works in an anganwadi (crèche) near Mazgaon Docks. "The problem lies in whom to direct it against. Given the slightest provocation, this may boil over."

Mumbai’s reality, especially after 1992-1993, has been one of increasingly segregated spaces and realities. In a visible wave of ghettoisation following the targeted violence of 1992-1993, communities sought refuge in numbers. Large ghettoes grew larger still even as new ones were born. Localities with a multicoloured hue increasingly and insidiously sported a monochrome character. New Bombay (Vashi), Yari Road, Mumbra, Kandivli, Borivli many of these were the face of this change. This ghettoisation is ripe ground for misconceptions to breed and flourish, unchallenged by the rich daily contact between individuals of different communities.

Some degree of segregation and ghettoisation has been a fact of life in Mumbai, or Bombay, long before 1992-1993. Tales of top names from Bollywood (including favourite villain Amjad Khan or lyricist/scriptwriter Javed Akhtar) being unable to buy a bungalow in the Juhu-Vile Parle scheme have tainted the image of Bombay’s cosmopolitan past. But the sharp and aggressive exclusion of the minority from majority dominated areas – be it for house space or office space – is a relatively new phenomenon that must be tackled head-on.

"Mini Pakistan" is an abusive epithet heaped upon large minority ghettoes by sections of the people, the police and the administration. Accepting that huge segregations do not make for the development of multidimensional and healthy mindsets, what have our administrators or our town planning elite done to address this crucial question?

Discriminatory justice and discriminatory development are two potent breeding grounds for terrorism: Despair and impotence the fatal mix. And today Mumbai’s segregated spaces and ghettoes are sure-fire breeding grounds for rigid mindsets and prejudice. Lalbaug, Parel, Girgaum and Musafirkhana are equally, one and all, victims of this trend. Situated in central South Mumbai, the crowded business district of Musafirkhana is an interesting example. This teeming business district of wholesale cloth traders and traders in electronics and home utilities is a celebratory mix. While Muslims own almost all property in the area, over 60 per cent of the business here is owned and controlled by non-Muslims. There is safety here, and continuity. The business community’s Muslim leadership is proud of the security it offers others. But what does it get in return? Says Farid Khan of the Bombay Aman Committee, "We only long for similar security in other areas where we do business." Just six months ago when a Muslim businessman wanted to buy some property for a retail business in nearby Girgaum, he was told by the estate broker, "Even if you were willing to pay Rs 1,00,000 more, you will be refused."

It is this sort of warped reality that Mumbaikars live in and with, dealing with a prejudice that has dug its heels into the system over the past years and has, today, distinct manifestations. Ramnikbhai (name changed), a third generation garment merchant from Kalbadevi, agrees. "We do business together; we trust each other with transactions but not lives. How is that possible? It is unfortunate and must be rectified."

Muslims face more than a little discrimination in access to housing, education and even to financial institutions, micro finance and credit. Incidents such as July 11 do not make this reality any easier. Two well known credit card companies (one Indian and one foreign) do not give credit beyond Rs 20,000 to businessmen from certain ‘grey’ blacklisted areas. (These are Muslim dominated areas in Mumbai and Maharashtra and include examples like Mumbra and even Malegaon.) Refusal to provide billing facilities for cellphones to some businessmen in Mumbra has led to the widespread feeling that national telecom companies are discriminating against Mumbra’s Muslims.

Mumbra, the dark underbelly of Mumbai, has been labelled a ‘terror city" after Ishrat Jahan, a Mumbra girl, was killed in a police encounter in Ahmedabad in 2004. Jahan was ostensibly part of a plot to kill Gujarat chief minister, Narendra Modi. With a total population of seven lakh people of whom roughly 80 per cent are Muslims, Mumbra has no secondary school, poor supplies of water and electricity and receives worse than the proverbial stepchild treatment from the Thane Municipal Corporation.

To cope with life after the bomb blasts, to deal constructively with the future, this prejudice in justice deliverance and access to development needs to be confronted honestly and urgently.

Dealing with Mumbai post-July 11 would be incomplete without a look outside. Switch to the international scenario. A crucial difference between 1993 and 2006 is the now omnipotent global War on Terror. This war has given the terrorist one face and one brand, as is evident from the racial and religious profiling of several people all over the world. Recently this included 12 Gujarati Memon (read Muslim) businessmen from Mumbai who were illegally detained for over 48 hours at Amsterdam airport from August 23-25, 2006. The patent injustices of that war have had critical and shameful manifestations across continents.

The fact that western democracies, especially those responsible for state terrorism, are still compelled to deal with vibrantly diverse and plural populations, including large communities of the Muslim minority, lend a degree of complexity to this reality. If the realities of Abu Ghraib prison torture show the ugliest face of the USA today, the steps that country has taken to make its domestic Muslim population comfortable is another face of the same reality. Another aspect of this new global war is the Muslim population’s response, emotional and otherwise, to developments in West Asia and Palestine. A reflection of this is apparent in the daily coverage in Urdu newspapers. This has led to convenient conspiracy theories among a section of Indian Muslims who continue to remain in a state of denial. Could a Muslim ever be responsible for the horrors of July 11? Mossad and its devious hand, both during the World Trade Centre bombings and now, has become the easy focus of a conspiracy theory among Muslims reluctant to look within.

There is a section of the majority which feels that terror has grown because of the soft treatment the state has meted out to criminals. There is a section of the beleaguered minority which is reeling under a sense of victimhood. There is the Indian state in all its manifestations which, over two decades, has emerged as anti-people, especially when it comes to the conduct of the police. There are political parties who have ridden on the wave of hatred.

A unique meeting called in Mumbai on July 27 felicitated the local heroes who stepped in to help victims and thus preserved the spirit of humanity after the blasts of July 11. Organised by Citizens for Justice and Peace and Muslims for Secular Democracy among others, Mufti Fuzail-ur-Rahman Hilal Usmani, chief mufti, Punjab, issued a fatwa against terror at the meeting. "Hindu dharam mein ghrudna aur krodh ke liye koi sthan nahin ho sakti (There can be no place for hatred and rage in Hinduism)" declared Dr Veer Bhadra Mishra, mahant of the Sankat Mochan temple, Varanasi.

The hardest task that faces all of us today is to force this kind of introspection within each section of Indians. Fair and responsible conduct on our part, even as we demand transparent and non-prejudicial governance from the administration. The rule of law.