SSridhar wrote:Ashok Sarraff wrote:
quote="SSridhar"
-----------------------------------
It is not as though the Shi'as have been complete dhimmis like some other people. They have also retaliated but they are 20% of the population against the 80% TFTA who have the backing of all the apparatus of the State. For example, see Sipah Mohammed whose political wing is Tehrik Jaffria Pakistan (TJP)/quote
-----------------------------------------
I see. But why don't we hear about loving explosions in Rawalpindi and Lahore that much? Even if the population is a low 20%, why are there so few peaceful blasts in the core Paki areas? It should not be too difficult for a handful of Shia/Baloch freedom fighters to infiltrate the elite areas? Or is it? The last major attempt I remember was in GHQ Rawalpindi, but I am not sure whether it was TTP/Sunnis or the Shias who did it. Even the Mehran Naval-base attack was attributed to the Taliban. Hate to bring in India here, but given the attacks in India by (elements from) a less numerous minority on targets such as the Parliament, Delhi High Court, Mumbai 26/11 and so on, the % argument does not seem to be the only explanation. What else is stopping them?
I think there are several reasons. But, it may be necessary to divide it into two questions, the how & why of Shi'a killing and the mysterious and seemingly non-retaliatory submission of the Shi'a in Pakistan.
A little bit of history. Though Jinnah was a Shi'a, (Ismaili converting to twelver Shi'a), his funeral was not allowed to be conducted publicly by a Shi'a cleric, though his sister Fatima Jinnah had arranged for a very private Shi'a ritual the night before the Sunni clerics took over. The janaza was led by the rabid Sunni Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, a Deobandi who migrated from India and who had apostatized Shi'a even when he was in Deoband itself. It was the same Shabbir Usmani that Jinnah himself requested to hoist the Pakistani flag on August 14, 1947 at Karachi. If that was the case in c. 1948 and that too involving the Founder of Pakistan itself, what else could be expected six decades later ? Shabbir Usmani was also made Sheikh-ul-Islam in Pakistan by GoP and he drafted the Objectives Resolution. Maulana Shabbir Usmani’s student was Maulana Yusuf Banuri who founded the famous Banuri seminary in Karachi that has been in the forefront of not only jihad but anti-Shi'a sectarianism. Maulana Usmani famously demanded ‘jiziya’ from non-Muslims in the Constituent Assembly and told Pakistan’s first Minister for Law and Labour, Jogendra Nath Mandal, a Hindu, that non-Muslims should not hold such key posts. So, Deobandi version of Hanafi Islam was the official Islam of Pakistan right from the beginning though there were Berelvis in very large numbers until the trend began to change.
Though the Islamist Pillar of the 20th Century, Maulana Abu Ala al Mawdudi, spearheaded sectarian Islamism, it was more directed against the Ahmedis. The real impetus against the Shi'a happened during Zia-ul-Haq's regime when he tried to introduce Sunni Hanafi fiqh over the Shi'a and other Muslim sects as well. By that time, the Jama'at-e-Islami's (JI) leadership had passed into Pashtun hands, especially Qazi Hussein, a Pashtun. His role in jihadization of Pakistan is well known. He had the support of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and he was bankrolled by them into opening wahhabi seminaries all over the place. He was co-opted into the inner circles of Zia. Recently, the Baloch Milli party's member in the National Assembly had said that Col. Imam had admitted to training 95000 jihadis (must have all been Sunnis and sectarian too) during the Afghan jihad itself. How many more thousands have the various Sunni sectarian tanzeems (by my last count, there were three dozen at least) trained since then ? They are all available at beck and call, one should assume. The Shi'a or any other group do not simply have such resources because they are not funded by rich and powerful sources from outside, foreign governments and even the Deep State.
Within Pakistan itself, opposition to the Shi'a was cleverly exploited by the Deobandi religious sects. It started in the Punjab where rich Shi'a landlords dotted the landscape. This seems to have been the case in and around Jhang where the 'Mother of all terrorist Tanzeems', Sipah-e-Sahba Pakistan (SSP) originated. It cleverly asked the contract labourers to target Shi'a landlords. No wonder Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), the ultra militant outfit does this on a massive scale today.
As Shah Pahlavi in Iran was replaced and Al Khomeini took over a nervous Iranandits ally, the US encouraged actions against Iran in collusion with the GoP and the PA. The siege of the US embassy in Tehran, the hostage situation and the failed military attempt to free them all added to the wounded pride. This alliance of the Gulf countries (led by KSA), the US & Pakistan was too powerful for the Iranians and the local Pakistani Shi'a to take on. For example, SSP is a close ally of the ruling PML-N in the Punjab. Later events since then, up to this date, have pitted Iran against the Gulf Countries and their Western allies. Though Iran warns Pakistan every now and then of serious consequences, it has not been able to do much.
Why aren't the Shi'a retaliating? For one, the Shi'a (at least in Pakistan) seem to believe in targetted attacks, rather than indiscriminate bombing. They may have a reason for that, religiously or socially, I do not know. But, they have retaliated as well.
They are believed to have killed Zia-ul-Haq. LeJ's Chief Maulana Azzam Tariq was assassinated by the Shia in 2003. They do give a fight to the jihadi Deobandi/Wahhabi groups in Gilgit-Baltistan, they fight back in Karachi, Kurram and even Parachinar.
For another, most Shi'a are well educated professionals, politicians, landlords and are generally decently employed unlike the illiterate teeming in the million Sunnis. They have occupied high positions in various Muslim dynasties in the Indian subcontinent and they have that legacy whereas Pakistani Sunnis do not boast of one. These sunnis fall an easy prey to myriad jihadi and sectarian tanzeems. Even if a tanzeem were to start off as a jihadi outfit to attack the kafir, they would sooner or later begin to take on the Shi'a as well because they would naturally come under the kafir category too. It is like Pakistan starting off as a Muslim state but within two years becoming a theocratic state as the Objectives Resolution was passed. The Shi'a are also easily identifiable like the Mongoloid features of the Hazaras, or the marks (generally) on the forehead because of the way of praying, or when they take part in Ashura processions or visit the imambarghas etc. It is like the Taliban asking the Sikhs and Hindus in Afghanistan to wear a saffron arm band always for easy identifiability (for killing, just like the Jews being forced to do so in Nazi Germany).
As already stated, the Afghan jihad created thousands of foot soldiers trained in guerrilla warfare and many leaders who could strategize and execute a plan. The Shi'a never took part in that jihad and they do not have therefore resources like the Sunnis have. They also do not have access to arms, ammunition and training like the Sunni jihadi sectarians have. Take Kasab for example and his training.
I also believe that like their leader Hazrat Ali, who withdrew, rather than challenge his rights after Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) passed away and bided his time patiently, the Shi'a may not challenge and love martyrdom.
The % thing you have raised does not apply, IMHO, because Indian terror is Pakistan induced, managed, funded etc. A lot of planning and consequently funding went into the attacks that you mention. An organization or a country must invest so much to destabilize another nation even if there are some willing elements there to help in the process. For Pakistan, destabilizing its neighbours like India, Iran & Afghanistan is the only job even if it's at the cost of generation after generation of Pakistanis.
All highlights are mine in this excellent post.
Agree fully with it.
