(This is a reprint from NewsBred).
You have read about this
The thrust of Mander's argument is that terrorists and those who cause communal riots must be treated as guilty of similar crime. Both spread panic, if not divisions in the society.
The second point he makes at the end of his piece is that most communal riots in independent India have been caused by Hindus--by inference they must thus also be treated as terrorists. (By equating terrorists with Hindus it's Ghulam Nabi Azad in a different garb, i.e. ISIS is RSS jibe).
It's a long and rather boring piece but you kept up with his terrorists vs communal rioters theme for hundreds of words, knowing that the thrust of his "bite" would make an appearance at some stage. Presto, lo and behold, right at the end of his piece he did drop his guard: "A majority of those charged with terror crimes are religious minorities. While a majority of those charged with communal crimes are from the majority Hindu community, its victims are mostly religious minorities""
Mander's entire premise is wrong. Terrorists and communal rioters aren't the same thing. Terrorists take innocent lives without any provocation. Communal rioters take innocent lives at a perceived provocation. A community has hurt your religious feelings and say raped your women--it thus must be avenged with. A terrorist who drops a bomb in a mall or blows up a train has no such specific provocation.
There is another distinction: communal riots are largely local in character. Terrorism is a global phenomenon. If men from Algeria cause killings in Paris, it isn't because they don't like the lovers at the bridge on river Seine which they cross every day on way to work.
Terrorism is also often cold-blooded--and planned months in advance. Communal riots are usually a burst of emotional upheavals which mostly finish in a week or two.