The Delhi bomb blast has unsettled a city that prides itself on its capacity to absorb shocks, resume life and push on. Yet despite the magnitude of the blast and loss of lives, amid the fear and the predictable swirl of speculation, the Union government has acted in a most professional manner. There has been no knee-jerk attribution of guilt, no sabre-rattling, no premature accusations.

In fact, what stands out most in the first 48 hours after the blast is precisely what has not been said. By allowing investigative agencies to work quietly, by refusing to indulge in political grandstanding and by avoiding the temptation of pointing fingers before evidence has been gathered, the government has shown a confidence in its investigative agencies, particularly the Delhi Police, the National Investigative Agency and the Jammu and Kashmir Police. This has, to an extent, prevented the atmosphere from descending into the familiar cycle of communal blame and consequent tensions.

But while official response has been measured, much of the public reaction – particularly online – has followed a more troubling script. Within hours, social media was awash with insinuations aimed at Muslims, especially Kashmiri youth who live, study and work across India. When Omar Abdullah spoke that all Kashmiris are not terrorist, it reflected the pathos in the Kashmiri psyche. WhatsApp groups turned into informal “investigative panels”, identifying imagined conspirators; anonymous accounts recycled old prejudices with new urgency; public voices through media channels hinted at collective culpability, as though an entire community could be implicated by the actions of an unknown individual or group.

Also read: Family Home of Delhi Blast Prime Accused Demolished in J&K's Pulwama

Unfortunately, this pattern is not new. It is part of a long and disquieting trend in which Muslims – and now specifically Kashmiris – are considered latent threats. This is the same climate that allows hate speeches delivered with impunity, the bulldozing of Muslim homes before guilt is established, the harassment of Kashmiri students in colleges and hostel premises. It is a climate in which the citizen must continually prove his loyalty, and the burden of proof never seems to end.

This collective suspicion is not only unjust; it is dangerous. A society that normalises the othering of its minorities walks a perilous path. Alienation festers beneath the surface, often unnoticed, until it manifests in ways that damages everyone. If India has learned anything from the last seven decades, it is that communal profiling assists neither national security nor national unity. Effective counter-terrorism demands intelligence, professionalism and the steady accumulation of evidence – not the broad brush of communal suspicion. In any case, for India with its minority population ranging over 20% it is a fool hardy game.

It is always in times like these that one is drawn to Gandhiji’s voice. Few leaders of modern history understood the corrosive power of blame as acutely as he did. Confronting communal carnage at the twilight of the Raj, he walked unarmed into neighbourhoods ravaged by fear, trusting in humanity when humanity seemed least deserving of trust. He insisted that no community should be judged by its extremists, that hatred must never dictate policy and that Hindu-Muslim unity was not an optional moral sentiment but an existential necessity.

His murder by a fanatic was, in many ways, the price he paid for insisting on India’s essential pluralism. That moral clarity is precisely what we need today –  an unambiguous refusal to indulge collective blame.

India has a long history of different peoples and cultures living together and it prides in its syncretic culture. Long before the Republic was born, India’s story has tales of Ravidas , Guru Nanak, Kabir, Tukaram who spoke and sang of an equal, casteless society – a message of understanding, compassion and love. These voices wove a cultural imagination in which religion was a field of compassion, not conflict. Side by side with Bhakti flowered the Sufi tradition. Sufi saints, from Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer to Nizamuddin Auliya in Delhi and the Naqshnbandi sufis in the Punjab and Delhi opened their doors to all – Hindus, Muslims, seekers, wanderers, kings and the destitute. Their khanqahs became sanctuaries of solace, song and generosity. They did not preach conversion; they preached connection.

Also read: Modi at Sufi Conference: 'Diversity Should Not be a Source of Discord'

India’s founders understood these inheritances. In the Constituent Assembly, even as memories of the bloodshed at Partition were raw, they insisted that citizenship would not be defined by faith. They debated security, but they also insisted that the Republic could not be hostage to fear. Ambedkar warned against the tyranny of caste; Nehru insisted that the majority must hold itself to the highest moral standard; Maulana Azad reminded the nation that India’s diversity was its greatest civilisational strength. The Preamble deliberately included ‘ fraternity’ as an exclusive line – it was the foundation on which a plural, democratic society had to be built.

This brings us to the crucial question: How should the government act now? The first requirement is to maintain the tone it has set. In a highly digitised, hyper-reactive society, the state must not allow its officers the temptation to offer running commentary while investigations are ongoing. Every speculative statement from an official source becomes fuel for prejudiced actors.

Second, law enforcement must be guided strictly by evidence. Investigations should be methodical, professional and insulated from political pressure. This is vital not only for justice but also for the credibility of the state – because nothing corrodes public trust faster than the perception of selective targeting.

Third, the government must send a clear and public message discouraging communal profiling. A strong statement from the highest levels – indeed from the prime minister himself and the home minister – must acknowledge the anxieties of Kashmiri students, urge citizens not to circulate unverified rumours and reaffirm constitutional protections. This will go a long way in controlling irresponsible statements and stoking of hate. Action must be taken against anyone encouraging differences that may lead to violence.

Also read: Where Is Gandhi in the India of Today?

Fourth, the government should work with universities, employers and local administrations to ensure the safety of Kashmiris and other vulnerable groups. At this moment, it is incumbent on all to give confidence to the Kashmiri youth when there is a needless needle of suspicion towards them and they face harassment from many quarters. A hotline, a set of clear protocols and rapid response teams for harassment complaints could go a long way in assuring anxious students and workers that they are not alone. Strictest action must be taken against anyone encouraging differences between communities that may lead to violence.

Fifth, India must invest not only in security hardware but in the software of social harmony: education that teaches critical thinking. It is a futile and harmful policy to attempt changes in history taught in schools and colleges. Facts have to be laid bare, with all the good and the warts. Academia must emphasise constitutional values and it should be clear that political culture does not reward divisive language. Without these, policing alone cannot secure the country.

Security cannot grow out of fear but through liberty and free speech. The Delhi blast tragedy also signals that there may be ‘sleeper cells’ elsewhere. Therefore, the blast becomes a test for our institutions, our political class – and each one of us as citizens. If we falter at this, the perpetrators have won and their deeds will haunt us in the future too.

Najeeb Jung is a former civil servant, former Vice Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, former Lt. Governor, Delhi, and currently Chairman of the Advanced Studies Institute of Asia.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.