CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

2016 Una flogging incident

Cow vigilante action in Una

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionAug 8, 2026
Entity authoritySource title only
Source-derived summary

In July 2016, seven members of a Dalit family were assaulted by a group of people on the pretext of cow protection in Una in Gujarat, India. The video of the incident was circulated on the social media resulting in statewide protests in following months. Forty-three people including four Gujarat Police officers were arrested and the case is under trial since August 2018.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “2016 Una flogging incident” as cow vigilante action in Una. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2016, 2018—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where flogging, incident and vigilante can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as cow vigilante action in Una. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 8, 2026. The first chronological checks are 2016 and 2018.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “2016 Una flogging incident”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2016 Una flogging incident primary sources, 2016 Una flogging incident archive and flogging research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “2016 Una flogging incident”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “2016 Una flogging incident” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.