I do not support any violence by anyone but my support , non-support or criticizing violence will not stop/initiate any violence in this world and one day if something happens by this kind of communally targeted violence against me or my near, dear one's, I may resort to violence because I am human being not a saint and I am not going offer my other near, dear one's to the perpetrators following Gandhi's preaching and secularists preaching. If the state can not give me security (which is the main objective and obligation of it) then I have to do my own arrangements, either I tolerate loss of my near, dear one's or I will try at least to stop this by any means. This incident was result of persistent crime/violence by a particular community members against other communities. This incident signifies the feelings of those communities ho wthey feel threatened by this Jehadi extremism? If you want to stop reactions, you need to stop the actions against which the reactions are happening. This incident is a symptom of a bigger and serious disease, you and the author are trying to prove that the symptom is disease but in fact its not. This where I do not agree with your and author's analysis. This kind of rare incident are manifestation of a bigger problem, and we are trying to hide ourselves to point towards that because it puts a label of communalism. We excuse ourselves to face the reality. The reality is, this kind of incidents will increase in future because you and the author and other secularists are pointing towards a symptom and trying to treat that only. How quickly the author came to an conclusion that this person was inspired by Hindu nationalists. This author or you never referred Jehadi terrorism inspired by which or whom.