I want to point out a common operational tactic in Islamist mass-violence in the Indian subcontinent. It's a pattern you see repeatedly in incidents of such mass-violence, whatever their intensity or supposed "root cause".
I've sketched a couple of rough graphics to illustrate.
First example: Baduria, WB. A Hindu high-school student apparently posted something on Facebook that was used to manufacture outrage as allegedly offensive to Islam. A large Muslim mob surrounded the student's house, assaulted his family, burned the house down, and attempted to lynch the student.
If you look at the disposition of Islamic activists involved in the incident it looks like this:
Here, the actual lethal or potentially lethal violence (culpability for homicide and large-scale destruction of property in the eyes of the LAW) is carried out by only a few individuals... the darkest green ones marked "A".
Around them are a larger number of medium green individuals marked "B". These operatives are abetting the violence... intimidating, blocking escape routes, using (in and of themselves) non-lethal measures like assault with fists/sticks/stones. The point is that in the eyes of the LAW their culpability is LESS than those marked "A".
And surrounding the B individuals are a very large number of light-green Muslims marked "C". These people don't have to do anything at all but stand there, look angry, mill around, and shout slogans.
You can see how the wide belt of C-Muslims is completely protecting the A- and B- Muslims by enveloping them, and acting as a barrier against Security Forces (the khaki squares).
Here is the vital detail. In the eyes of the LAW the C-Muslims are hardly culpable at all. Given the vast burden of precedents from Nehruvian Sickularitis, it would be easy for a lawyer to argue that any C-Muslim who was arrested was only expressing his/her protest over offended religious sentiments. Preamble to the constitution and all that.
However, the C-Muslims are also serving as willing human shields for the A- and B-Muslims. The B-Muslims are serving as willing human shields for A-Muslims as well as abetting the crimes of the A-Muslims. It is only the A-Muslims who are actually committing murder, arson, etc.
If the Security Forces want to get at the A- and B- Muslims they have to use techniques that will harm the C-Muslims.
This key aspect is what is consistently highlighted by the pro-Islamic, anti-Hindu propaganda machinery. Death or injury of C-Muslims will invariably be framed as the State using deadly force to injure or kill ordinary citizens who were simply present to exercise their fundamental right of protest at their religious sentiments being offended.
In the Baduria case, Mamta Bannerji actually argued that nothing was done to stop the mob burning down the house because "if the police had resorted to firing, 200 people would have died".
The very same schema illustrated for Baduria above, applies in J&K to the scenario where DSP M A Pandith was lynched outside the Mosque in Srinagar.
Here is another illustration more typical of what happens when terrorists are cornered by security force cordons in J&K.
The terrorists (A) are the armed individuals hiding within the buildings (or whatever cover is available).
The B-Muslims in this case are the stone-pelters. Stone-pelting is of course an offense but a much lesser offense, in the eyes of the LAW, than the terrorist activities carried out by the A-Muslims. Responses by Security Forces against the stone-pelting B-Muslims, such as using pellet guns or tying them to the front of a jeep, will be propagandized as heavy-handed violation of human rights.
But importantly, there is an even larger number of C-Muslims interposed between the A- and B- Muslims and the Security Forces. These C-Muslims MAY never throw a stone in the course of the incident (they may simply shout slogans, wave Pakistani flags, and look angry). Or they MAY be simply waiting to be assigned to stone-pelting duty. But the security forces are not allowed to act pre-emptively to stop a shouting C-Muslim from upgrading to a stone-pelting B-Muslim, until and unless he/she actually throws a stone. In the meantime, again, C-Muslims serve the valuable purpose of serving as willing human shields (for both B-Muslim stone pelters and A-Muslim armed terrorists). If anything happens to them, the entire anti-Hindu nexus of the judiciary, the Indian and foreign media, human-rights NGOs, hostile foreign governments, and opposition political parties will put up a shrill chorus condemning the security forces and the GOI as communal, fascist, and utterly disregarding of human rights.
We know all this.
The question is: at what point does restraining the security forces to protect the life and limb of C-Muslims in such scenarios STOP being worthwhile?
Does the logic of restraint follow a law of diminishing returns?
Is there a case for simply taking out a certain % of C- (and of course B-) Muslims in every such incident? This at least could serve as a deterrent to large numbers of potential candidates who want to come out and act as C-Muslims the next time an incident occurs. It would assure them that involvement in such activity, even if legally unimpeachable and covered by "human rights" propaganda, also amounts to playing a round of "Paki Roulette". Every single time.