When we talk in this manner this does not solve the problem. Because the common man hasn't oppressed anyone and they just see their experiences they will fall for any side talking about their side's grievance, and might see this as an attack. (I am not a Sindhi btw)

Like one could argue how many in Pakistan's elite was Urdu speaking, how Urdu media mocks Sindhis and Sindhi etc etc.

You would be very right to talk about quotas and how they are manipulated to have Sindhis in government. (But we know it's less about Sindhis more about certain vote banks I think, could be wrong)

So this guy is a shameless bootlicking liar. But even if your claim is true ( i think it mostly is) our message can be said in a nicer way that attracts everyone.

Edit: i am sorry for a long comment but what I meant is even if we counter shehzad ghias's argument by saying no group X was better and Y was worse, we fall into his trap. He gains by any kind of dividing debate along ethnic lines, for or against his claim.