.It is very easy for muslims in minority to talk about communal harmony. But do they do the same when they are in Majority. Can they talk against what they have done to Kashmiri Hindus. Further, anti-muslim riots are new phenomenon in India-(Started in late 80s), but their were riots in muslim dominated areas ever since independence (Moradabad, Meerut, etc.) Hence it can be presumed that Muslims want communal harmony when in minority, but Muslim state when in Majority. This outlook has to change .

.U r right zaigham.... we should learn to live in peace and harmony

.A very nice article i must say. But frankly more than just an article it is a presentation of facts. Feelings of an average indian citizen belonging to the minority community in India have been clearly brought out and the onus lines on us, the great majority community to listen and pay attention to these voices. We all have to stand together and come fwd in support of brotherhood and communal harmony. All peace loving citizens of this nation have to make themselves heard over all this din of communalism in our India.

.Absolutely amazing! Keep it up!!!

.The majority should should owe the responsiblity to keep the peace as a big brother, whereas the minorities should behave like a responsible family member where small disputes shall be ignored. For the existence of India both should learn to live peacefully.....

.You are right.The Hindus need to speak out against what is happening in the name of their religion and for that to happen,the Muslims will have to come out in open and condemn what has been done so far in the name of their religion and the Christians need to speak out against the conversion games being played by american baptists in this country in the name of their religion.Yes,we the common people need to speak and speak together.

. I SUSPECTED some design when the Justice Nanavati Commission submitted only a part of the inquiry report on what was known as the Godhra incident. I could see the contents written on the face of a gleeful Gujarat Chief Minister Narender Modi in a photograph at the time of the report��s presentation. It was clear that Modi had been exonerated. Was it necessary for Justice Nanavati to suggest this or even release a part of the report if he did not want to favour Modi and the BJP? Nanavati has clarified after heavy criticism that his first report was confined only to the burning of the Sabarmati Express. He has said that he did not give a clean chit to Modi or his government, and that he was still working on the rioting after the Godhra incident. Why should the Nanavati Commission which has had as many as 16 extensions submit an incomplete report? There was no pressure on the commission. Then why hurry? It looks as if Nanavati is a party to the travesty of justice: separating the report into two parts when it should have been one document. True, the BJP and Modi wanted it that way. But I cannot comprehend why Nanavati has done so. He knows that nobody can condone the killing of some 2,000 Muslims, not even his commission. The ethnic cleansing in Gujarat has been recorded visually and there are many witnesses and documents to corroborate it. Are compulsions stemming from the second part the reason for splitting the report? Maybe Nanavati has a point. But he has already held local Muslims guilty of ��conspiracy�� in the burning of the Sabarmati Express. The manner in which he has exonerated Modi and his officials suggests that Nanavati was discussing the Gujarat carnage, not the burning of the train��s bogie. Since the full report will be ready only by the end of the year, this gives an opportunity to Modi and the BJP to go to town on what Nanavati has already said and exploit the findings in November��s assembly elections in five states. It was clear that Nanavati was more or less repeating the version which Modi and the BJP had projected to provide an alibi for the massacre of Muslims soon after 59 kar sevaks were burnt alive in the compartment that caught fire. The report released by Nanavati is no different. He too says the fire was ��a pre-planned conspiracy�� by local Muslims. Justice Nanavati has also ruled out the involvement of any religious or political organisation, exonerating the BJP, the Bajrang Dal and the like. The version which Nanavati has relied upon is in stark contrast to what another Supreme Court judge, Justice U.C. Bannerjee, had reported. According to him �� he was appointed by the railways �� the fire was not ignited from outside the coach but from within it, either by accident or design. Bannerjee has repeated his findings even after Nanavati��s report. The special investigation team appointed by the Supreme Court to reinvestigate the riots is still at work. Nanavati should have waited till it had given its report. By not doing so, Justice Nanavati, himself from the Supreme Court, has shown scant respect to the apex court. Even the petition challenging the Bannerjee Committee��s findings is still pending before the state high court. Should Nanavati have still gone ahead? The conflicting reports bring no credit to the judiciary. Had such a thing happened at the level of two judges in a subordinate court, the high court would have taken them to task. I cannot say anything more but I do feel intrigued by the spectacle when the judges involved are from the Supreme Court. It is obvious that Nanavati wanted to favour Gujarat, the state which appointed him to head the inquiry commission. He knows he cannot but criticise the state in the post-Godhra report. Did he intentionally separate the two incidents, which are really one? Since the first report is favourable to the state, he let it go as if it were independent of the other. Legally, there is nothing wrong in releasing the report in parts. But ethically it is not correct because people are now expected to make up their mind on the basis of a partial report. I have a nagging feeling that the post-Godhra report, which is bound to hold Modi and the Gujarat administration guilty, and corroborate the thesis that there was a prior plan to cleanse the state ethnically, will be released after the general elections due early next year. Wittingly or unwittingly, Nanavati has helped Modi and his party. The Jan Sangarsh Manch (JSM), a Gujarat NGO, is the first to react to the submission of an incomplete report. It has criticised the Nanavati Commission for being hasty in presenting an incomplete report to the state government. The JSM��s convenor, S.H. Iyer, has questioned the urgency of releasing the partial report. He asks: ��Don��t the thousands of victims of the post-Godhra riots have any right to know why their lives and property were destroyed? And which minister, politician, police officer or organisation was responsible for the massacres��? I recall talking to Justice Nanavati before he submitted his report on the 1984 riots in which 3,000 Sikhs were killed in Delhi alone. He told me what happened in Delhi could happen anywhere in India and at any time because the police knew no limits and politicians no norms of behaviour. He even commented on the probe that he was conducting into the Gujarat killings. He said ��I have seen the same pattern in Gujarat.�� He also said he had no good word either for the politicians or the authorities. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand when he gives a clean chit to Modi, his council of ministers and police officials. Former Chief Justice J.C. Verma, who has also served as chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, has released a letter which shows that he had cautioned Nanavati. In his statement, Justice Verma has said that Nanavati��s clean chit is far from the truth. In the report on the 1984 riots, Nanavati had expressed his helplessness. After 20 years, he said, there was no concrete evidence to pursue, nothing to bring the killers to book. I hope he does not take the same line on the post-Godhra killings and expresses his helplessness once again. The 1984 killings were two decades old when Justice Nanavati was asked to probe. The killings in Gujarat are only six years old. The nation expects him to do a better job.