rightly said. forget what the pseudo-secula media has to say for the post-godhra. but even for the godhra carnage, look at their reporting which was such a bad to instigate the normal hindus. immediately on the next day of the train carnage, i.e. 28th Feb. 2002 reporting by the eng media: (1) that there was a verbal fight between one tea vendor and karsevaks at Godhra rly. Station, that fight resulting in his anger and led to the gathered mob attacking the train. Media reported the incident as if the karsevaks were responsible for the mob's behaviour of burning the train, indirectly justifying the reaction of tea vendor and his group to the action of the verbal fight. (here action-reaction formula is justified by them but the same formula is not justified when the post-godhra outburst starts.) (2) some reported that there was some allegation of molestation of one woman at the station leading to the mob burning train and some rubbish thing. Even after passage of 6 months, when during the attack on akshardham temple, reporting by editor of one leading eng daily: "inspite of attack on akshardham temple and death of 'innocent' devotees (karsevaks were not %u2018innocent%u2019!), no riots took place. whereas, in post-godhra, %u2018at least%u2019 there was some fight between tea vendor and the karsevaks (to instigate the mob to burn the train)" thereby justifying the action-reaction theory for the mob burning the train. However, porst-godhra reaction is not justified by the same media.
