
Around a dozen activists of the SIC were injured when police stopped their rally at Sawan bridge on the outskirts of the city later in the evening.
The council activists started their ‘long march’ to Data Darbar Lahore from the Bari Imam shrine in Islamabad earlier in the day to protest against attacks on Sufi shrines, other acts of terrorism, price hike and other issues. The government had imposed Section 144 in Rawalpindi, asking the SIC not to stage the rally due to reports of terrorism threats.
Defying the ban, SIC leaders Sahibzada Fazal Karim, Pir Afzal Qadri, Syed Sarwat Ijaz Qadri, Haji Muhammad Hanif Tayyab along with hundreds of their activists started the march.
They said they were holding the march against the government’s failure to curb continual attacks on the shrines Sufi of saints and its failure to take action against outlawed sectarian outfits. They said the SIC would not allow changes in blasphemy laws – a demand from moderate forces of the country.
Murree Road witnessed traffic jams as the rally passed through the city’s central road. Clashes erupted between police and SIC activists who tried to burn containers placed on the GT Road to stop the rally participants.
A baton charge by police and retaliation from protesters resulted in injuries to some SIC activists and a couple of police officials.
The SIC activists staged a sit-in on the road and refused to disperse despite repeated requests by the administration.
Rawalpindi’s Commissioner Zahid Saeed told The Express Tribune that law-enforcement agencies arrested 181 activists, a figure contested by the SIC leaders who claimed that hundreds of their workers had been detained by police.
According to Saeed, around 300 activists were still present at the Sawan bridge and the authorities were asking them to disperse peacefully. The standoff between the two sides was continuing till the filing of this report.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 28th, 2010.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ