Two sisters shot dead in Indian Kashmir

Police officer blames Lashkar-e-Taiba for killings, but it has not claimed responsibility as yet.


Afp February 01, 2011

SRINAGAR: Suspected rebels shot dead two sisters in Indian-administered Kashmir, police said Tuesday, in what would be their first major attack of the year.

The two women were killed in Sopore town, 55 kilometres (35 miles) north of the region's main city Srinagar, senior police officer Altaf Ahmad told AFP, adding that the motive was unclear.

"Two Lashkar-e-Taiba(LeT) militants barged into the house of Ghulam Nabi Dar late Monday night and dragged his two daughters, Akhtar and Arifa, out of their house before gunning them down," the officer said.

Chief Minister of the region, Omar Abdullah, condemned the murders, saying the sisters were 19 and 17.

The LeT has not claimed responsibility for the murders.

Militant groups are known to kill people suspected of being police informers, while security forces have been accused by human rights groups of extrajudicial killings and acting with impunity.

The deaths took the total number of people killed in insurgency-related violence in the region to six in January – the lowest monthly death toll recorded in two decades, according to police figures.

The four others killed in January included two suspected militants shot by security forces and two soldiers.

According to official police records, killings dropped to an all-time low last year, from 10 daily in 2001 and a peak of 13 a day in 1996 when the insurgency was at its height with daily bomb attacks and gunbattles.

A total of 375 insurgency-related deaths were recorded in 2010, the same as 2009 when the figures were the lowest for any single year since the start of the insurgency in 1989.

However, the figures do not include the fatal casualties of massive anti-India protests that rocked Kashmir for the third successive summer.

An estimated 117 people were killed, most of them shot by police and paramilitary forces, during the demonstrations against Indian rule in the Muslim-majority Himalayan region.

COMMENTS (9)

G.Din | 13 years ago | Reply @G. Khan "...Did Alexander the great, succeed in doing so? or British succeeded? or did the Soviets? or The Americans and NATO? Your history knowledge is extremely poor. I am giving you an “F” which is even a big favor to you. ..." Alexander, the Great, fell ill and died in his first campaign into India. As far as the British, the Soviets, the Americans and NATO are concerned, these are NOT religious organizations and have no wish or desire to convert anyone. So, how can you compare Islam to those? You, my friend, don't even deserve an "F" in any thing. You just are not a suitable student and should not even be trying. Now, here is something you should know about Islamic barbarians and their invasions. All conquerors, Islamic or otherwise, have only one thing on their mind. - to subjugate a people and then to live off of them. That was true for Mughals as well as the British and all the rest. The first thing a conqueror does is to instill fear. At this stage, those who are lily-livered in the population earn their right to life by converting to conqueror's religion. Next, to consolidate the conquest, the conqueror uses lucre as the bait. That is how nawabzadas, raizadas and the rest came into being with the grant of land-holdings and other rewards. In this phase, the greedy ones in the population convert. Feeling quite secure at this stage, the conqueror stops any efforts at conversions and begins to rule. That is why, even in spite of a long Muslim rule, India did NOT turn Islamic. Those who had converted, amongst them your ancestors, were either greedy or lily-livered, not really something to be proud of. It is when Aurangzeb won the throne by killing his brothers and began the"Islamic" rule that Mughals lost their empire. Be cognizant of your history! Did you know that the grandfather of Allama Iqbal, an icon of Muslims in Pakistan, was a Kashmiri Pandit. He converted when his king caught him with his hand in the royal till and gave him a choice of either being beheaded or conversion to Islam. He chose to live and converted. This is recent history. Islam was spread at the point of the sword or inducements, never because of conviction, at least on the Indian subcontinent.
kamaal | 13 years ago | Reply @Tony Bhai...whatif picture does not relate to article...The editor should be congratulated that he seized the opportunity for India bashing in this news article as well...congratulations Mr Editor..I just wanted to know how on earth picture published is related to this news?
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ