National identity is mainly about setting boundaries and creating two groups, ‘us’ and ‘them’. ‘Us’ are the good guys, having all the noble qualities and inheritors of a marvelous civilization. ‘They’ are the bad guys, always cheating and scheming to defeat the good guys. Obviously, these two groups cannot be alike (otherwise there is no need of a separate nation), so their differences are highlighted. Complex world of interactions spread over centuries between the two groups is simplified. Narratives expounding the differences go into great lengths in telling people how these two groups were always very dissimilar. This focus on differences sometimes leads to politics of purity (or as according to Freud, the ‘narcissism of small differences’) and even ‘us’ group is scrutinized and some people are declared not pure or worthy enough to be part of ‘us’.
Not surprisingly, in states based on ethnic nationalism, the focus of scrutiny is on ethnicity while in states based on religious nationalism, religion is center of emphasis as it is the main marker of national identity. This issue was discussed in this previously (See Religious Nationalism and Sectarianism)
Pakistan, being a state based on religious nationalism, has to deal with sectarianism.
Kunwar Khuldune Shahid wrote an interesting article on Shiaphobia (See Shiaphobia). In this article, he presents the evidence of a ‘millennium-long tradition of Shia persecution in this region’. Please read the article and following are my comments.
Before commenting on the article, I want to clarify that I am against the persecution of minorities in Pakistan and ashamed of how Pakistani state has collaborated with militant groups involved in the harassment and oppression of minorities, including Shias. So, I share author’s concern about the recent upturn in horrible incidents against Shias.
However, as a budding historian, I feel it necessary to point out that (as senator Moynihan said) author is entitled to have his own opinion but not his own facts. I suppose author does not like creating long narratives by picking and choosing facts as he starts his article with the phrase, ‘When Muhammad bin Qasim was busy becoming the first Pakistani 1,200 years before the country actually came into being’, however, he commits the same mistake.
Let’s start with Mahmud of Ghazni. In his history of Mahmud’s reign, Persian Shia historian Mahmud Qasim Hindu Shah Ferishte, while giving account of Mahmud’s one of the earlier attack on Multan, writes that Mahmud decided to attack Multan’s Ismaili ruler Abul Fateh because he failed to pay tribute as Abul Fateh’s father and grandfather used to do. Later, when Mahmud was about to defeat Abul Fateh, Abul Fateh pleaded and Mahmud went back to Ghanzi with the promise of twenty thousand gold mohurs, enforcement of sharia and renouncement of Ismaili faith. It was only in a later expedition that he captured Multan and killed Ismailis. Sultan Mahmud also fought with other Sunni Muslims rulers during his lifetime and killed many Muslims, so it is difficult to prove that he was killing people because of their religion or because he wanted power and gold. The account by Ferishte shows loss of tribute was certainly a big part of what Mahmud was doing. So, author’s claim that it was a pre-mediated Shia genocide seems to be somewhat exaggerated.
Again claim that Shias were persecuted from 16th to 19th century is difficult to accept. Except for Aurangzeb, there is not much evidence that other Great Mughals (1526-1707) were trying to systematically persecute Shias. As Humayun was helped by Iranian Shias regain his throne, it is difficult to think he would persecute Shias and Akbar was certainly not persecuting any major religion.
After Aurangzeb, Mughals generally lost their power and were unable to pursue any policy in the whole of their empire as provincial governors became the main decision-makers in their own areas. So, claim for systematic persecution is improbable in the later Mughal period (1707-1856), although some individual rulers/governors might be doing it.
I also find it difficult to believe that there was a campaign against Shias during the 1950s to 1970s. There were some incidents but the proof of a campaign is not there. I personally think most of the groups that later on led the anti-Shia front were busy against Ahmedis. However, if author has more evidence to prove his theory, everyone would be happy to consider it.
Since 1980s, I agree that Shia phobia has increased in strength in both state and society and this is reprehensible. Moreover, involvement of Pakistan in Syria would be disastrous for country to say the least. We have enough troubles already. We should return the few billion dollars and say, ‘Thanks, but no thanks’.
However, there is not much evidence of ‘millennium-long tradition of Shia persecution in this region’.
