This persons family had lost everything they had - rather, everything they had was taken - by people they knew - the people who they lived among, worked with and so on. And they were not Hindus and Sikhs or Jains or Buddhists.
And yet, as he explained his situation, he actually said, "I don't want to sound religiously biased, but well, they took everything we had, including our house". And then went onto talk about army abuses and so on - almost apologizing for those very people who had taken everything they had - implying that because of all this, their family had invited all this upon themselves or all that (caused by the government) was making them pay for it.
Firstly, it WAS his religion that made his abusers throw out his family - so if his attackers were religiously biased - and let us not pretend that religion had nothing to do with it - he has to be honest about it.
And second, that is a great narrative on how the attacked seem to invite attacks on themselves. And this is a great narrative to build and you hear it all the time - from the so called liberals - that the Babri Masjid demolition was the cause of a certain otherwise secular gangster to set off bombs in the very city that he had made his billions. That the Gujarat riots were the cause of anger among a set of people who have decided to take revenge for everything that happened. Even some paid analysts in the United States think so - that if India gave up Kashmir - Pakistan, would, magically, become a great pacifist state overnight.
The problem with this cause effect theory is that it seems to work in one direction only. And it is often justified in one direction only. I ask you why.
Why is it that a single Kashmiri Pandit never took to the gun? Why did not they invent their own Al-Qaeda? Why did not create a terrorist organization that took revenge?
Why is it that there is no Hindu terror organization in Pakistan? In Bangladesh?
(And I am not saying there should, but unless money, arms, motivation is supplied, a terrorist organization cannot be created- ever. Now ask yourself who supplies these to terrorists. End of argument.)
And why is that the person who lost his home only because he worshipped a different god, apologetic about stating it in as many words? Why do you have to be politically correct to those who took away everything you had? I am not saying thirst for revenge, but why be politically correct and not call a religious bias a religious bias?
There is only explanation. Stockholm syndrome of the 'secular' kind.