And furthermore... if the police acted in this manner, showing complete disregard for the writ of Islamist community leaders in their fiefdoms, acting to lay down the law regardless of who broke it and where... there is no reason to believe that it would strengthen the hand of those Islamist leaders. In fact, I believe that it would give courage to those "silent majority" Muslims we talk about, a reassurance that the police and the state will be there for them if they live up to their obligations as good citizens by condemning terrorism and informing on the troublemakers. In the absence of a state presence in certain "no-go zones" (again, justified in the name of "maintaining communal harmony at all costs")... the silent ones have no incentive not to remain silent, as the power vacuum is filled by the Islamist blackmailers, their crony maulvis and their goon squads.
Absolutely.
A State cannot be seen to condone "dissidents". Then that is not a State at all. This is something that this immature democracy doesn't understand.
If a State is seen to be soft on those who are flagrant then in due course of time the victims of that flagrancy gravitate even further away from the State and ironically towards their tormentors.
The term "protection racket" is far more severe in import than what it is made out to be. It is another term for the social contract after all.
Apropos to you observations about the West Coast, peninsular India is now the real hotbed of anti-national activities. In the "north' communal relations have a different dynamic from that in the South with an Azamgarh here and a Deganga there notwithstanding.
The radicalization of a "particular community" in peninsular India is very alarming indeed and this is where the 'gelf interaction' link just cannot be ignored despite the need to put our house in order.