The Bangalore blasts are not going to change any thing. The so-called "Indian resilient spirit" is known to just go on with life as usual no matter what. Is this resilience or public apathy? As to indifference to the plight of others and desensitization---that seems to be a fact of life the world over, more so in affluent Western cultures, where people don't want to waste a precious moment partaking in another's sorrow or loss. For many, that's valuable time lost from their own agendas, and even if the agenda is that of getting sozzled in the bar, that is far more precious than empathizing with someone else's situation or loss.

The Indian community is known to be less desensitized and more empathetic, though that may be rapidly changing. Is this a dichotomy of the Indian community spirit? There's more community spirit and empathy on one hand, yet the resilience to go on as if nothing ever happened after such terrorist strikes, is also a prominent Indian quality. Can this be defined as acceptance of the situation as it is, whether that  situation includes corrupt political leaders, or repeated terrorist strikes, or is it just plain apathy?

People just want to go on with their lives, to pursue their own personal agendas. Is that wrong? In the Indian context, the agendas are more basic, less self-indulgent, more "real." Raising families, earning livelihoods, educating one's children, are perhaps noble agendas, when compared with the agenda of pursuing a self-indulgent and self-destructive lifestyle.

Many of us consider ourselves to be good individuals, based on the agendas we have. If our personal agendas include raising good children, taking care of parents, we are ordinary individuals. If our agendas additionally include giving back to the community, voluntary work, starting a nonprofit organization we rise a little above the ordinary. If our agendas include starting a business venture, the boundaries are more fuzzy. Our main aim may be the selfish profit motive, but our agenda may at the same time help provide employment to numerous people.

The real test is having the willingness to suspend one's personal agenda for someone else's just for a while, when a crisis situation arises. Not many of us are willing to take time off our personal agendas, and no matter how noble our personal agendas, that does make us selfish and self-serving. How many of us will stop at an accident scene and help the victim instead of rushing off to work? In the U.S, that is not required, since the Emergency services manage that pretty well, but this is  just an example of a general unwillingness to take time off our own personal agendas.

Back to the Bangalore blasts. Does  not being deterred  from one's personal agenda by the threat of terrorism make Indians superior in spirit, or does it just mean Indians are passive and suffer from apathy?