Re: Maharashtra: 4 dead, 50 injured after clashes between two communit
How probable is it for a Indo-pak discussion to occur in a local cricket match win-loss discussion when both communities are playing together (against each other) ? I would say it is very highly probable.
1. It's an assumption that the arson started because of a local cricket match, based on a singular report from the DNA, with no other investigating reporters, including those from some the most newspapers in the country, reporting it.
2. It is an assumption, that if the first assumption is held to be true, the two communities were playing
against each other. How many times do you see a friendly local between communally homogenous teams in India?
3. It is an assumption, that if the first two assumptions are held true, the team comprising Muslims unequivocally supported or took objection to something said against Pakistan.
How likely do you think it is that all three assumptions came true, especially since no one else, except the DNA, is reporting it?
Once the conflict started, it would be really hard to know the original story even for those who roam around the city unless they are part of it.
Do you think a cricket match, involving two communities entirely pitted against each other, starting a riot and arson that involved 4 casualties and supposedly over 100 injuries, would have escaped the attention of
all the locals in a small-town community like Dhule? How likely do you think it is, that even if one member of the community got a whiff of the reason, the entire community would not inevitably know?
Why is there a large mob just for a cricket fight? How large is the mob when it is being reported that 100 policemen got injured with around 50 of them injured severely? How large should be the mob when they have to injure the opposing community and a 100 of the policemen? How large should be the mob that necessitated 100 policemen to get there? I would say the mob should be pretty high in number. Or maybe the mob comprises of just 25 people according to the 'Akbaruddin Owaisi postulates', cause 25 muslims can take care of opposing team, and 100 'namard' policemen in a ratio of 1:4 and still emerge victorious unscathed.
:thumb:
Why are we presuming that the cricket match was in any way connected to the fight, when only one news paper has prematurely reported it? Why are we assuming that, even if the match, with its broader connotations of India-Pak cricket, was the real reason for the violence, the violence was purely communal (as is being made out to be) and not neighborhood-neighborhood, as usually is the case in such incidents? How are we presuming that
if the match was the real cause of the violence, it got taken from a ground or open space in the Madhavpura area to a busy section of Machibazar, where there is barely place for the two communities, in the purported numbers, to gather? How are we rationalizing the theory: that the match started the tiff, with the fact that the violence started specifically outside the hotel, which separate eyewitnesses claim was the scene of a brawl between hotel managers and patrons over a bill just moments earlier?
