As for the "sets of players" referred to by Visakha Kawasaki, we have no way of knowing all of the "players" because we do not seem to be getting the full story. This was the reason for my questioning the situation, it seems that the only information we are getting is from one "set of players."
The question, "What about the police and the mobs involved?" needs clarification. The term "Police" can denote a number of groups, we don't really know what group is being referred to. It is possible that "police" just means the local constabulary, the group responsible for maintaining civil order and investigating local crime. Local constabularies are found everywhere; in America they comprise local police departments in towns and cities or in rural areas the county sheriff. The next level up here in the States would be a State Police forces, then we get into federal law enforcement with its myriad of alphabet agencies responsible for various areas of law enforcement.
The statement, "Police aren't local people" cannot be verified and seems to be a naïve assumption. Immediately following, the statement, "They are agents of the State" is true, but without knowing the identity of the "police" involved we cannot determine if we are talking about a local law enforcement body concerned with maintaining order or some sort of secret national police force involved in systematic religious suppression.
As for "the mobs involved" referred to by Visakha Kawasaki, on close examination we are being presented with a term "mobs" that is subjective, vague and undefined. How many mobs are we talking about? If indeed the group of people behaved as a "mob" just who were these people? Were they local people and local Buddhist clergy acting in frustration toward a group of people who were told by their Temple Abbot a year ago to leave? Or were they bussed in by some government agency from afar to beat and humiliate Thich Nhat Hanh's monks and nuns for the purpose of repression? There is a big difference.
These questions cannot be answered with the facts available, to assume they can be is just jumping to conclusions without clear evidence. Is this not true naïveté?