Why Türkiye should rethink its relations with India

[IceCold]

Erdoğan Will not live for ever

You need to read our history before passing on such comments.

 

[Nilgiri]

And do you know the breakdown of the British-Nizam-Maratha forces at Seringapatam?

Madras Army and Bengal Army.

Brother pitted against Brother by the colonial usurper like I said elsewhere earlier.

 

[Naofumi]

Madras Army and Bengal Army.

Brother pitted against Brother by the colonial usurper like I said elsewhere earlier.

I mean who contributed more other than British? Nizam or Marathas?

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

Jinnah commissioned the Pak flag...

 

[Max]

I would love to see Turkish ATMACA missiles on Indian navy warships...

Don't you feel ashamed when you write this? you are fkin country of 1.3 billion people, why you don't produce your own?

On topic, i personally have no reservations, Turks can establish relations with whomever they want, They should milk India more then anyone else. it wont effect Pakistan a bit.

You won't listen much about Pakistan or Kashmir from Turkey after Islamist Erdogan leaves.

Its Islamist or Atheists China who are allies of Pakistan.

 

[Lincoln]

He was a Pan-Islamist till his last breath, the closest "nationalism" we can find in his works is this
View attachment 635136
So, not really nationalistic, in fact rejects nationalism and call for Islamic unity but Nations must focus on themselves temporarily and an eternal unity afterwards.

And you're correct, he was not a secularist in any sense, he defends old laws and criticise some of the laws like the equality between men and women in inheritance and related matters for instance.
View attachment 635137
Furthermore, the nature of the website is irrelevant as the quotes are not falsified and independently verifiable.
View attachment 635138
View attachment 635139
View attachment 635140


You're forgetting that "Muslim" Nizam was more stable and permanent ally of the British than the Marathas, he supplied at least 16,000 numbered force to the British in the siege of Seringapatam (1799).
@Nilgiri @Joe Shearer

A quote alone doesn't suffice for shit. You need context, and you need to look at the preceding and subsequent ideas. The website is relevant because the whole purpose of the website is to look at from a bias, a bias to prove something, not to investigate and come to a conclusion. The website provides bad context, and so do you.

The first part of your quotations, you would know that he supported the idea of nationalism... not extreme nationalism, and towards the end of his life, he believed that Muslims should have their own independent nations and identities, but they should also be united under a council, a commonwealth of nations, like the present day European Union.

Don't you know that Pakistan was Iqbal's dream?

Secondly, about his critics. He used to criticize the last ottoman caliph, and based it on a concept of 'Ishq and 'Aqal, wherein he praised Turkey's founder. For context, he said that Ataturk conducted like a lion, whereas the Caliph conducted like a fox.

Upon abolishment of the Caliphate, Iqbal did have a negative reaction. However, the last phase of his works can be found in his book Reconstruction, his views were entirely different. He saw the Turkish Republic and its new reforms as a bringer of a new phase and future for Islam, and called it Turkey the element of stability in the Islamic world.

Reading singular quotes of his works won't do any justice, they will seem contradictory. If anything, you should be picking up his last works, the evolved philosophy.

Lastly, I suggest you quit talking about Allama Iqbal, as an Indian. I cannot stand someone who goes to google, types in "Iqbal and Pan Islamism," and opens the first link with a title that satisfies him. If you want to argue on this, you will read all his works on the topic, or you will read an actual publication which objectively analyses it, or you will keep your mouth shut.

 

[Nilgiri]

I mean who contributed more other than British? Nizam or Marathas?

For seringapatnam specifically, looks like nizam did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Seringapatam_(1799)

Maybe Joe can answer more of this.

 

[Naofumi]

A quote alone doesn't suffice for shit. You need context, and you need to look at the preceding and subsequent ideas. The website is relevant because the whole purpose of the website is to look at from a bias, a bias to prove something, not to investigate and come to a conclusion. The website provides bad context, and so do you.

The first part of your quotations, you would know that he supported the idea of nationalism... not extreme nationalism, and towards the end of his life, he believed that Muslims should have their own independent nations and identities, but they should also be united under a council, a commonwealth of nations, like the present day European Union.

Don't you know that Pakistan was Iqbal's dream?

Secondly, about his critics. He used to criticize the last ottoman caliph, and based it on a concept of 'Ishq and 'Aqal, wherein he praised Turkey's founder. For context, he said that Ataturk conducted like a lion, whereas the Caliph conducted like a fox.

Upon abolishment of the Caliphate, Iqbal did have a negative reaction. However, the last phase of his works can be found in his book Reconstruction, his views were entirely different. He saw the Turkish Republic and its new reforms as a bringer of a new phase and future for Islam, and called it Turkey the element of stability in the Islamic world.

Reading singular quotes of his works won't do any justice, they will seem contradictory. If anything, you should be picking up his last works, the evolved philosophy.

Lastly, I suggest you quit talking about Allama Iqbal, as an Indian. I cannot stand someone who goes to google, types in "Iqbal and Pan Islamism," and opens the first link with a title that satisfies him. If you want to argue on this, you will read all his works on the topic, or you will read an actual publication which objectively analyses it, or you will keep your mouth shut.

Firstly, all of these quotes are from Reconstruction (1930) itself and what else your response contains other than ad hominem? And how establishment of Pakistan is in contradiction with Pan-Islamism?

And I am not an "all ignorant" when it comes to Iqbal, I have studied a lot about him.

 

[vishwambhar]

Don't you feel ashamed when you write this? you are fkin country of 1.3 billion people, why you don't produce your own?

On topic, i personally have no reservations, Turks can establish relations with whomever they want, They should milk India more then anyone else. it wont effect Pakistan a bit.

You won't listen much about Pakistan or Kashmir from Turkey after Islamist Erdogan leaves.

Its Islamist or Atheists like China who are allies of Pakistan.

I just liked the specifications of this missile and it was more like what offensive weapon would I buy from Turkiye if it is available for India.... that's it.....

 

[Brar]

I am all for good relations with India, but our relations with Pakistan rule out any deep defence relations. At least not until India and Pakistan have resolved their issues. That being said, Turkish companies are investing in India and Indian weddings have become common in Turkey.

Dont think we need to have any defence relations, economic interaction will go a long way.

 

[Naofumi]

The first part of your quotations, you would know that he supported the idea of nationalism... not extreme nationalism, and towards the end of his life, he believed that Muslims should have their own independent nations and identities, but they should also be united under a council, a commonwealth of nations, like the present day European Union.

This part is interesting, He accepted the temporary need of separate nations but he believed separate nations an artificial construct (his exact words) with Islamic unity should reign supreme, how can this be counted as nationalism?

 

[Lincoln]

Firstly, all of these quotes are from Reconstruction (1930) itself and what else your response contains other than ad hominem? And how establishment of Pakistan is in contradiction with Pan-Islamism?

And I am not an "all ignorant" when it comes to Iqbal, I have studied a lot about him.

Reconstruction is a big book, you know?

Anyways...
You haven't studied shit. You only opened up some crappy website and read isolated quotes. List all your sources, lets see where you are getting your stupid ideas from.

In the mean time, this should shut you up.

"Nationalism in the sense of Love for one's country, and
even readiness to die for its honor is a part of the Muslims'
faith. It comes into a conflict with Islam only when it
begins to play the role of a political concept, and claims to
be a principle of human solidarity demanding that Islam
should recede to the background of a mere private
opinion, and ceases to be a living factor in the national
life."

Pakistan was his dream, and the Two Nation Theory was his refined work. There's nothing contradictory about Pakistani Nationalism to his views.

This part is interesting, He accepted the temporary need of separate nations but he believed separate nations an artificial construct (his exact words) with Islamic unity should reign supreme, how can this be counted as nationalism?

Pity on you. You still don't understand his idea of nationalism. He criticized western nationalism because it was deep rooted in materialism. So much for "learning alot about him." What you're concluding is not only off the bullseye, it's off the entire target board.

 

[Joe Shearer]

For seringapatnam specifically, looks like nizam did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Seringapatam_(1799)

Maybe Joe can answer more of this.

Not much to answer. Out of every 100 soldiers on the side of the British and their allies, 8 were British (or Swiss mercenaries), 44 were Madras Army or Bengal Army sepoys (roughly 30 foot and 14 horse) and 48 were the Nizam's contingent, 16 being infantry and 32 cavalry.

If we count infantry only, about 46 being cavalry, 54 were infantry: 8 British, 30 Madras or Bengal Army, 16 Nizam's troops. Not quite @Naofumi's very wicked little jab, but I am counting infantry because this was a siege (with 'friends' inside), the cavalry role being just to bivouac and twirl their moustaches. They would have been very useful in case there was another army, intact and loyal to Tipu; there wasn't.

 

[Naofumi]

Pity on you. You still don't understand his idea of nationalism. He criticized western nationalism because it was deep rooted in materialism.

I must say you're yourself confused. You can't explain it, that's why resorting to personal attack, his position is clearly of a Pan-Islamist as another user put it.

It's very simple. Nationalism and pan-Islamism contradict each other. The first one empasises and places the nation state at the alter which in our case id Pakistan. With it you are required to place your loyalty to the Pakistani state. Pan Islamism however places your loyalities beyond Pakistan and with the wider Muslim world. Your required to think and advance the global Muslim community and not Pakistan;s. If and often the interests of both collide you are required to go against Pakistan and stand by the global Muslim order. Groups like Al Qaida, Muslim brotherhood, Taliban Tehreek Pakistan and others aspire to or support a global Muslim order and regard states like Pakistan as artificial constructs that come in the way of establishing a global ummah.

There's no other way round, there's no such thing as western nationalism or eastern nationalism. It simply seems a tactic to divert the criticism. What I am concluding is simple to understand if you put off heavy ego down.

A simple question : What if Islam's and Pakistan's interests contradict? Which side would Iqbal pick?
This alone settles the debate.

 

[shah_123]

Xyz?
Jinnah is now xyz?
It's Eid so I don't want to get to worked up but you really should re-read what I wrote

And since you are so keen to embrace yourself
Here is some xyz telling his nation that it is secular.

I failed to find the word secular in this speech?
the problem is not the speech, the problem is your flawed understanding -- Jinnah himself responded to those who tried to create controversy out of this speech :

"I cannot understand the logic of those who have been deliberately and mischievously propagating that the Constitution of Pakistan will not be based on Islamic Sharia. Islamic principles today are as much applicable to life as they were 1300 years ago."

Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Speech to Karachi Bar Association, January 25th, 1948.