Eng 95: A Rhetorical Analysis of "Indians Question Police Response to Recent Bombings"

My summary
Somini Sengupta's "Indians Question Police Response to Recent Bombings," reported in Oct 3's New York Times, discusses the recent violence in India and the police's reactions to that violence. In the last four months, approximately 150 people have been killed in terrorist attacks around the country, but most predominantly around New Delhi. For the most part this violence has been viewed as the work of Muslim separatists (the Hindi/Muslim conflict has been a source of conflict in India for years, which is actually why Pakistan separated itself from India. Thus, Pakistan is "predominantly" Muslim and India is "predominantly" Hindi).

My personal reaction
What I find striking in this account is the Indian public's questioning of the police accounts. The police's version of events focus on the fact that they have thwarted planned terrorist attacks by arresting (and often killing) suspected Muslim terrorists. The public is questioning these accounts by pointing out that some of those arrested/killed included preachers, students, scrap dealers, etc. In essence, fairly "regular" citizens. Yet, the police say these people were trained in the southern jungles of India by groups inspired by Osama bin Laden (and, of course, anytime one mentions bin Laden, the fear factor goes up). They also question how certain suspects escape, when the raids allow for an over-abundance of officers and guardsmen? Or why/how did the detective in one of the raids die when he should have been wearing protective armor?
This questioning is the type of questioning that I believe U.S. citizens should be doing more frequently. As a nation, we tend to believe what our officials report to us, and how the media reports it. We don't ask the questions, because often we don't realize there could even be other sides to the story.

A look at the author's rhetorical choices
Even in the reporting of this story, there are clues for the average citizen to look more closely. The author refers to India as "fractious and sprawling." Already the reader is supposed to believe that India is divided. The author questions the courts of India by questioning their "effectiveness" and calling them "overburdened." If the courts are that ineffective, then the reader will possibly sympathize with the police's actions. They must take action, because the courts probably won't (or at least this is what the author wants us to believe). He continues to call the nation "divided," but focuses that division on the Muslim community. They have a "deep well of anger among" them and "complain bitterly." This bitterness and anger could influence the reader into believing that this could cause the Muslim community to react irrationally (as we often do when we are angry)--thus supporting the idea that they are terrorists.
However, the author also uses rhetoric to question the police accounts. He writes that the police seized "what they called incriminating evidence," but they offered no details. By emphasizing that the police are calling it incriminating, the author is indicating that the average public might not call it incriminating. He highlights the fact that the police won't divulge details to allow the reader to question if the evidence actually even exists.
I also wondered if the reader was getting the whole picture. In one paragraph, Sengupta writes that the streets are covered flies which hover over the tainted drinking water. I know that the conditions in India can be deplorable, but is this the entire picture? Where are the descriptions of their universities and business sectors? He only focuses on the extremely impoverished areas.