Gilgit clashes: One killed, one injured as armed men struck twice in town

Only law enforcement personel were seen on roads.


Shabbir Mir December 24, 2012

GILGIT:


Fear gripped the city once again on Sunday when two armed assailants killed a man and left another critically injured in two strikes the same day.


The first incident occurred in Napur area where these assailants shot a man identified as Naiber Hussain. Half an hour later, they struck again, near Amphery area, injuring Mir Zaman. He was rushed to a government hospital where his condition is stated to be critical.

“Forces have cordoned off the area and are searching for the perpetrators,” a police official in the city police station told The Express Tribune.

The city wore a deserted look after the killings. Only the law enforcement agencies were seen patrolling the roads.

At least seven

Chairing a meeting of Masjid Board members held in Gilgit a day earlier, Chief Minister Mehdi Shah agreed that the number of Masjid Board members should be increased from 20 to 30. The decision to increase the numbers has been taken in view of the members’ effectiveness in maintaining sectarian harmony in the region, he said.

“No criminal will go unpunished. There are a handful of them and they will be taken down at any cost,” he added.

Gilgit has been in the grip of violence since the first week of December when a senior leader of JUI-F was gunned down. The incident followed an armed clash between two groups, leaving two dead and seven others injured. At least seven people have lost their lives since then as target killings continue to risk the peace of the city.

A police official

Masjid Board, a representative body of Shia and Sunnis, was formed to reduce clashes after the deadly bouts of violence in April. A curfew was imposed in the town due to the unrest.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 24th, 2012.

COMMENTS (1)

AzarRamil | 11 years ago | Reply kalash
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