In responding, I wish to affirm that the experiences and perspectives foregrounded in my article are those of my interlocutors, and not merely mine. While my article’s introduction attempts to broadly trace the complex histories and causes of sectarian enmity, inclusive of state factors, my analysis here prioritizes the explanatory rhetoric employed by those interlocutors who, when discussing conflict and the fracturing of regional health governance, spoke of the contribution of local sectarian forces. My article’s overview of the situation, then, is a product of this ethnographic and analytical choice.

2. True that Jalalabad is almost 10 kilometers South of Danyore, but it is not Danyore. Similar for Sakwar, which is located in the limits of Gilgit city, not Danyore.

3. The whole city and the whole region knows that at the core of this so-called sectarian “animosity” is everything except animosity. Save for the revenge killings, which are tribal and medieval in nature, all incidents of violence (which are presented through propaganda tools as sectarian “tension”) are engineered by powerful state institutions, to keep the region destabilized and shrouded in uncertainty. The worthy scholar, however, may not dare to touch the core of the issue, for the fear of losing, most probably, the opportunity to visit the region again.

NOC matters.

I wish to emphasize that at no point does the article profess to address all local or regional issues, peoples or contexts. Indeed, by building on my longitudinal research findings concerning identity-related instabilities and insecurities, I provide an ethnographic evaluation which focuses explicitly on the role played by sectarianism in Gilgit Town’s health service delivery and medical economies.

Yet, through an exploration of the health sector we also gain insights to the broader stresses, uncertainties and polarizations which have come to define – often to a significant degree – inter-sectarian social, economic and political relations in Gilgit Town.

One need only turn to the research precedent, local and regional media, and reports such as those generated by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, for example, to confirm how frequently sectarianism continues to shape, or is used to explain, Gilgitis’ experiences with and understandings of sociality, space and governance. Sadly, as my years living in Gilgit and my interlocutors’ narratives attest, routine acts of sectarian violence continue to plague this small city and its peoples. Nor are sectarian-aligned vulnerabilities, enmity or violence exclusive to Gilgit Town, but are observed and reported to occur across Gilgit-Baltistan’s mixed sect communities, albeit in different ways and to variable extents.

With regard to the 1988 massacre, it is worth noting that in addition to Jalalabad, a number of other villages, such as Sakwar, were also the focus for the violence and destruction inflicted by the Sunni lashkar (militia). (For more information on 1988 and more recent conflicts, please see Ali 2008: “Outrageous State, Sectarianized Citizens” and Aase 1999: “The Theological Construction of Conflict: Gilgit, Northern Pakistan”.)

By relation, I wish to respectfully correct the commentator’s suggestion that Jalalabad is “located almost a hundred kilometers away from Danyore town”. Instead, Danyor is no more than 8 or so kilometres from Jalalabad.

Finally, as the commentator aptly notes, there is a critical need to better understand the inter-sectarian resiliency, peace and political activism that endures even despite the worst effects of Gilgit’s multi-generational ‘tensions’. I wholeheartedly encourage other researchers to explore these issues as well as the wide array of equally under-explored, misunderstood or contested aspects of life and governance across Gilgit-Baltistan.

However, I would like to mention that the title of this article is a bit misleading. It is based on the “experiences” of people based in a single city and that city may not necessarily be reflective of the trends in all parts of Gilgit-Baltistan. The dynamics in other areas are different, and the worthy researcher knows it very well.

Also, I don’t think the Aga Khan Health Center is being relocated to bring it at some kind of a “neutral” site. The reason that I know pertains to the fact that the current building is not purpose-built and fails to meet the demand for services.

Moreover, it is a gross mistake to say that in 1988 Danyore town was attacked and people were massacred. That unholy war took place in Jalalabad, located almost a hundred kilometers away form Danyore town.

Additionally, it is not entirely correct to use the term “enemy territory” while mentioning routes leading to the DHQ Hospital. This gives the feeling that all the Shias and all the Sunnis consider each other as enemies. Needless to say, this is farthest from the truth. There are very recent examples of how these communities have come together to reclaim their agency for peace, which is systematically being snatched from them by certain state agencies for other “gains”.

Such articles also cement the sectarian divides and carelessly establish myths and fads as the “truth” by shaping them in scholastic manure, if i may dare say. This, definitely, is damaging for the region’s overall wellness.

I can presume that the scholar has tried to remain “focused” and “impartial” and has attempted to hit in all directions.

This leads us to the crucial and historical question of whether a scholar should detach one aspect from the whole social facade and paint it as the ultimate truth, even if unintentionally so.