The situation of Shias in Pakistan is in no way comparable to that of Muslims in India.
I agree. It is far worse and getting even more worse. That is why boatloads of Shia are running off, many in ramshackle boats knowing that chances of making it across thousands of miles of ocean are pretty slim.
That was just inevitable in a way.
A bus journey for you in Pakistan will be statistically much more dangerous than almost any adventure activity in the world, including climbing the Everest with no mountaineering experience at all.
Thousands and thousands of them have been killed in Pakistan in inter sectarian violence. Many by PA supported Tanzeems. They roam free, obviously with the establishment winking and looking the other way.
This is not a new report:
You can go a few more years earlier in 1984 when General Zia sent his notorious lashkar led and supervised by no other than Brigadier Musharraf aka General Musharraf, the enlightened, the moderate. This proto-Talibanic lashkar not just burnt alive hundreds of the Shias of Gilgit, it burnt alive the animals too owned by the Shias. Of course, this can be justified because those animals were not human, Muslim, or Pakistani.
Talibanization of the heart | Pak Tea House
If one looks at just the facts, I had read a figure of 5600 Shia killed in the last decade, at least 5-6 years back. Now it would be much bigger number.
Many times more than the "different" Gujarat riot or any Hindu Muslim riot in India.
The NLI was used as sacrificial lambs by Musharraf (considering his role in the above Shia genocide, led by Osama Bin Laden) in kargil with no care for even their bodies? What does that show?
As for perceptions, we all have our own.
Eighteen bloodied bodies, shot Gestapo-style, lay by the roadside. Men in army uniforms had stopped four buses bound from Rawalpindi to Gilgit, demanding that all 117 persons on board alight.Those with Shia sounding names on their national identification cards were separated out. Minutes later it was all over; the earlier massacres of Hazara Shias in Mastung and Quetta had been repeated.
But with Shias and Ahmadis it was different. Whatever they might feel now, they were enthusiastic about Pakistan. Mr Jinnah, born a Gujrati Shia Muslim, believed that Muslims and Hindus could never live together peacefully but that Muslims, of course, could. Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan, an Ahmadi leader, was commended by Jinnah for having eloquently argued the Two-Nation theory, and then appointed by him in 1947 as Pakistans first foreign minister. Mr Jinnah died early, but Zafarullah Khan lived long enough to see disillusionment. The inevitable had happened: once the partition was complete, the question of which version of Islam was correct became bitterly contentious.
Until recently, Pakistans Shias did not have the self-image of a religious minority. They had joined Sunnis in supporting Mr Bhuttos 1974 decision to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim. But now they are worried. The Tribal Areas are convulsed in sectarian warfare: Kurram, Parachinar and Hangu (in the settled districts) are killing grounds for both Sunni and Shia, but with most casualties being Shia. City life has also become increasingly insecure and segregated; Karachis Shia neighborhoods are visibly barricaded and fortified.
At the Multan DPC rally on February 17, Khatm-e-Nabuwat leaders bayed for Ahmadi blood while sharing the stage with the famed Malik Ishaq, a self-acclaimed Shia-killer. Newspaper reports say Ishaq was freed last year after frightened judges treated him like a guest in the courtroom, offering him tea and biscuits. One judge attempted to hide his face with his hands. But after Ishaq read out the names of his children, the judge abandoned the trial.
Run for your life The Express Tribune
So when you said "unfortunately for us" earlier, this is what is really unfortunate for you, what happens in your own Islamic countries.
Now what happens in other non Muslim countries. They are doing well thank you. They don't need your advice or even your concern.
Someone asked why Muslims are different from other minorities in India. The answer is that there is a long history of Muslim-Hindu conflict in India. Muslims came as invaders and ruled large parts of India for centuries. Many Hindus have not forgotten that and will never reconcile to the presence of Muslims.
Most Muslims in India are native converts. I will repeat what I said to you earlier on this issue.
Pakistanis are just Hindu converts as far as we are concerned.
Some of us think of them as self loaths, who surrendered their identity to all comers and hate the people who didn't do that. They need constant reassurance that they did the right thing, like all others who also went through
similar experiences .
They had nothing to do with that barbarity in India, they were the first victims of it. They were just weaklings who surrendered (or were made to surrender) and became apologists for those who persecuted them.
At best you can say we have contempt for that mindset. No hatred.
That part is only for the actions of Pakistan.
BTW, the highlighted part in your post seems to suggest some invaders didn't belong to the land even after hundreds of years. They could never become Indian (or Pakistani for that matter). They just remained aliens, disease causing antigens, waiting to be thrown out by the native antibodies to regain the health.
But that is only for the barbaric invaders who could never assimilate. Not for native converts or those who became Indian in letter and spirit after all those hundreds of years.
Only fair?
After all, as non natives, it is their prerogative to assimilate. Not ours to overly accommodate such people. That is how it works all over.
It could have been much worse had the Dharmic people not been so tolerant. There are many examples around the world of such invaders and their collaborators and lackeys being treated in very different ways.
We don't owe them anything. Nothing at all. They only deserve a payback for the actions of their ancestors if they are still proud of them.
They could begin that by starting to apologize for all the fil.thy barbarity rather than being proud of it.
Some extremist Muslims might also throw that fact in the Hindus' face.
They may and as far as I am concerned, they can shove it. I can only have contempt for their identity crisis. Most Muslims in the subcontinent have more Indian blood than foreigner.
If there are still some "pure foreigners" left after a thousand years, I just hope they get a chance to get the hell out before the inevitable comes their way.
While there is sectarian violence against Shias in Pakistan, it is a new phenomenon in terms of scale. Shias are a very integrated part of Pakistani society from the military officer corps, to the media, to the fact that one of the two dynastic parties ruling Pakistan is Shia. For a 25% minority to hold a 50% stake in the ruling sweepstakes hardly speaks of marginalization.
Fantastic statistical analysis.
Just a wee bit problem with the sample size!
And of course, that minor ignoring of all the other facts, like the tens of thousands of Shia being killed all over Pakistan. With the establishment winking and looking the other way.
BTW with your explanation here, can I consider Zaradari to be a true representative of Shia in general?
Or the treatment of the Shia Bhutto family by the PA as representative of their love of the Shia?
And most Pakistanis' tremendous love for him as their love for Shia as well?
Contrast that with India, where one of the two ruling parties makes no bones about its appeal to sectarian hatred. It purports to protect 'Hindu' interests from poaching by minorities. It is a blatant play on people's prejudices.
Well, you may contrast all you want. I don't even want to bring all facts from your Islamic world and Pakistan here.
Suffice to say, you have much to do before you can aspire to the standards of the "worst of creation" on whom you keep on making unceasing and ever increasing demands, disregarding your own reality.
The contrast will not be in your favor if we were to really do it.
And my question again:
So, would it be fair for me to say that as a Shia you have to "jump ever higher to prove your loyalty and patriotism"?
That you need need to prove your "anti Zionist" credentials more than others because Shiasim is charged with being a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Islam from within?
If yes, why should we give you any credence?
If no, why not?