Why Türkiye should rethink its relations with India

[Joe Shearer]

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

LOL.

@masterchief_mirza is a nice, reasonable and invariably polite discussant, and has more knowledge of history than the average man in the street, but this is finally fairly shallow, and does not stand strong scrutiny.

You are right in what you said, and in the support that the Marathas (ironically, in terms of what was to ensue between the British and the Marathas, and the role played by Arthur Wellesley, a young major who did very badly in the wars with Tipu, in those) and the Nizam gave the British. As I write this, I am sitting less than 5 kms from Bolarum, the site of the British Residency in Hyderabad, and opposite Risalla Bazar, next to Pioneer Bazar, from where the British Resident kept a watchful eye on the Nizam. As long as that potentate spent his time exercising his stable of concubines, he was safe on his throne; any movement towards independent thought was instantly visited by most unwelcome attention.

Marathas might have allied with the British is because they might have wanted to end the Mysore empire. Simple regional politics. And that's what happened. The Mysore state was distributed among the Marathas, British and the Nizam. It's certainly not unprecedented. We see a role reversal a few years prior to that event in the 3rd Battle of Panipat.

Yes, Maratha Mysore relations were not amiable in any sense and both were constantly fighting with each other even before the British came into the picture. So it's not like a friend betrayed his friend.

A more accurate betrayal would be Mir Sadiq who was Tipu Sultan's chief minister who was colluding with the British.

You mentioned that Marathas made an informed decision that future with British co-rule or under them would serve the interest of the Marathas. If that was the case, Lord Wellesley wouldn't have regarded the Second Anglo Maratha war (Marathas won the first Anglo Maratha war) that he fought as the toughest of all his battles. (He was part of the 4th Anglo-Mysore war and was also the same guy who handed the defeat to Napolean at Waterloo. He rated the the Battle of Assaye in the 2nd Anglo Maratha war above the one at Waterloo and the toughest. The Marathas on their part considered it neither as a win or a loss though the Britishers considered it as a victory.)

Yes, you are quite clearly making distinctions based on religion. In this thread alone, you mentioned Marathas as backstabbers in 3 separate posts while conveniently failing to mention the Nizam in even one of those 3 posts. You only accepted and mentioned Nizam when it was pointed out to you by @Naofumi and @Joe Shearer. In fact, as @Joe Shearer gave a detailed account of the numbers, there was actually no Maratha present during the Siege of Seringapatam where Tipu Sultan lost his life. At least, that's what I could gather from his post (which are many times hard to understand).

Coming back to the Marathas, don't forget that the Marathas checked Portugese expansion from the West. For all intents and purposes, the Portugese were more brutal than the British.

Also, Tipu Sultan too had taken some help from the French which too was a colonial power, not a major one in India probably but definitely in other parts of the world. I respect Tipu Sultan for his brave fight against the British and I'm not saying what the Marathas and Nizam did was right but it was done for their own self-interests of those times.

You are right in analysing my answer. I am unaware of any Maratha soldiery physically present. Their light cavalry, their bargis, may have provided cover to the besieging forces from some slight distance; they did not fight in the breach.

The numbers are percentages, I hope you noticed that, not actual numbers. You have to divide by two to get the actual numbers. So 44 is 44% of the 50,000 assembled, and 22,000 men.

And I hope Turkey does not and will not rethink it's relations with India. It will continue to side ferociously with Pakistan. Only Muslim countries like UAE, Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran can be double faced bastards and be pro India. Turkey is secular. Turkey emphasises nationalism. Turks know they have much to lose over 70 years relationship with not much to gain as Turkish Industry is competeting with Indian industry.

Note for the Pakistani's. some of the most ardent pro Pakistan Turks are athiest, uber Turkic Kemalists. And may they long live in Turkey.

View attachment 635169

You must forgive me for wishing equally hard that Ataturk's Turkey should be with India.

Eid Mubarak.

I'm not though. Plenty of Muslim traitors existed, including the nizam's forces who allied with the marathas and British against Tipu. Not sure how I can be more clear than this. I suspect it bugs you that Pakistanis don't actually conform to the ISIS type ummah chummah musulmans that the Indian state has deliberately nurtured over the years, ostensibly to allow Delhi to very easily villify them when necessary, yet simultaneously trick them with theology-based arguments as to why "Pakistan is evil". When it suits you, you teach Indian Muslims that Pakistanis are "unislamic" and "heretics" and Indian Muslims are true. Otherwise, you riot in their neighbourhood because they're too overtly "Muslim". They can't win.

I'll say it again (and for the record I was well aware before you or Joe or anyone else "informed" me) - plenty of Muslim traitors aligned against Tipu. Doesn't hurt me one bit to say so either.

Did you never watch the serial with Sanjay Khan?

This is frankly quite a bizarre argument. Are you also implying that I don't think there are countless modern Muslims who are completely loyal to non-Muslim majority nations?


So you're saying pragmatism in wartime is all that mattered rather than loyalty to sons of the soil. That's debatable but certainly Tipu had loyal Hindu aides and senior staff throughout his rule, not just as a last minute manipulation against Britain.

It cannot be denied that your grip on historical fact exceeds the common joe, if I might be permitted a turn of phrase. The Hindu ministers of Tipu were ironically the linchpins of the succeeding (restored) Maharaja's regime.

I'm not though. Plenty of Muslim traitors existed, including the nizam's forces who allied with the marathas and British against Tipu. Not sure how I can be more clear than this. I suspect it bugs you that Pakistanis don't actually conform to the ISIS type ummah chummah musulmans that the Indian state has deliberately nurtured over the years, ostensibly to allow Delhi to very easily villify them when necessary, yet simultaneously trick them with theology-based arguments as to why "Pakistan is evil". When it suits you, you teach Indian Muslims that Pakistanis are "unislamic" and "heretics" and Indian Muslims are true. Otherwise, you riot in their neighbourhood because they're too overtly "Muslim". They can't win.

I'll say it again (and for the record I was well aware before you or Joe or anyone else "informed" me) - plenty of Muslim traitors aligned against Tipu. Doesn't hurt me one bit to say so either.

Did you never watch the serial with Sanjay Khan?

This is frankly quite a bizarre argument. Are you also implying that I don't think there are countless modern Muslims who are completely loyal to non-Muslim majority nations?


So you're saying pragmatism in wartime is all that mattered rather than loyalty to sons of the soil. That's debatable but certainly Tipu had loyal Hindu aides and senior staff throughout his rule, not just as a last minute manipulation against Britain.

The serial with Sanjay Khan?

Ye Gods and little pink and light brown cherubs!

 

[Mr.Cringeworth]

Why then he kept quite when zinnah was asking for equal number of seats for Muslims in the parliament?

Brother his name was jinnah, i can understand in your language you might have difficulty writing his name but you do have a "J" in the english language use it.
Oh and zinah has a whole nother meaning in islam i don't think i have to explain that to you.

 

[Foxtrot Delta]

I just came to know from @Turan09 that Türkiye has a law limiting defense cooperation with India. I urge Türkiye to reconsider this law for the following reasons

1) Pakistan has been consistently increasing its reliance on China for its defence needs which means their procurement from Türkiye will decrease

2) India does NOT procure any weapons from China and is open to procuring weapons from Türkiye

3) There is greater chance that Türkiye can get support on East Turkestan from India than Pakistan. Pakistan will never support Türkiye due to their close strategic relations with China.

4) Türkiye's defence partners like US, Russia, Germany, UK etc would be more open to providing their tech for Indian orders than Pakistani orders

5) Türkiye's Technology and Indian money could give birth to many joint ventures. India will also lobby other partners from like Russia, US, UK, Germany on Tech and Subsystem transfers. This will also protect such joint ventures from sanctions.

you see as chinese and turks as enemies while we see them as close partners and allies of pakistan. xinjiang is a chinese land all turks and outsiders can do is ensure muslims are treated well and given proper rights.

indians should worry about india as you are opressing muslims in india and turks or pakistaniz or arabs don't like this attitude atleast in china they are not being killed or raped everyday while in india its a very very bad situtaion. Worry about your india first.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

I'm not though. Plenty of Muslim traitors existed, including the nizam's forces who allied with the marathas and British against Tipu. Not sure how I can be more clear than this.

The affection shown for the Marathas in your 3 posts in this thread while simultaneously ignoring the Nizam is clearly an indication of that. All you stated afterwards is just a cover up.

Not sure how I can be more clear than this. I suspect it bugs you that Pakistanis don't actually conform to the ISIS type ummah chummah musulmans that the Indian state has deliberately nurtured over the years, ostensibly to allow Delhi to very easily villify them when necessary, yet simultaneously trick them with theology-based arguments as to why "Pakistan is evil". When it suits you, you teach Indian Muslims that Pakistanis are "unislamic" and "heretics" and Indian Muslims are true. Otherwise, you riot in their neighbourhood because they're too overtly "Muslim". They can't win.

This isn't even related to the topic.

That's debatable but certainly Tipu had loyal Hindu aides and senior staff throughout his rule, not just as a last minute manipulation against Britain.

Same with the Marathas. We had Ibrahim Khan Gardi in the 3rd Battle of Panipat.

So you're saying pragmatism in wartime is all that mattered rather than loyalty to sons of the soil.

Surprised to see a Pakistani say that. But I know those are just token words suiting the narrative right now.

Did you never watch the serial with Sanjay Khan?

Are you talking about the 'Sword of Tipu Sultan' or the 'The Great Maratha'? Anyway, I've seen neither.

The numbers are percentages, I hope you noticed that, not actual numbers. You have to divide by two to get the actual numbers. So 44 is 44% of the 50,000 assembled, and 22,000 men.

Of course I know that.

 

[Naofumi]

And doesn't the blame rest upon Tipu's shoulder too? He himself failed to build good diplomatic relations with Nizam and Marathas.
@TheGreatMaratha @Joe Shearer @masterchief_mirza

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Nobody really about Turks in India OP. It doesn't matter as a country. If they want they will get friendship. But clearly they dont want it right now. So be it.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

And doesn't the blame rest upon Tipu's shoulder too? He himself failed to build good diplomatic relations with Nizam and Marathas.
@TheGreatMaratha @Joe Shearer @masterchief_mirza

Haven't studied in depth about the complex relations between the Marathas, Mysore and Nizam so difficult for me to answer this. I'll have to research on that. I just know that things started going downhill since Bajirao I made incursions in the South to extract Chauth. Tipu's father, Hyder Ali too had strained relations and there were frequent arguments around the demarcation of state of Mysore and the Maratha state. I think Marathas were agreeing to give a considerable territory to Mysore as long as they got the annual monetary tribute. I maybe wrong though.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Brother his name was jinnah, i can understand in your language you might have difficulty writing his name but you do have a "J" in the english language use it.
Oh and zinah has a whole nother meaning in islam i don't think i have to explain that to you.

I didn’t know his name is spelled with a J and not Z, surprised nobody corrected me all these years, even in school

 

[Mad Scientist 2.0]

And doesn't the blame rest upon Tipu's shoulder too? He himself failed to build good diplomatic relations with Nizam and Marathas.
@TheGreatMaratha @Joe Shearer @masterchief_mirza

Tipu was hot headed not as calm and diplomatic as his father. He took decisions upon impulse without thinking of the after effects he is a great warrior with lots of courage but when you are against english and have friend/foes like nizam and maratha you have to be cunning as well , same thing happened with Siraj Ud Dullah he lacked the diplomatic art as well which costed him dearly

Haven't studied in depth about the complex relations between the Marathas, Mysore and Nizam so difficult for me to answer this. I'll have to research on that. I just know that things started going downhill since Bajirao I made incursions in the South to extract Chauth. Tipu's father, Hyder Ali too had strained relations and there were frequent arguments around the demarcation of state of Mysore and the Maratha state. I think Marathas were agreeing to give a considerable territory to Mysore as long as they got the annual monetary tribute. I maybe wrong though.

Marathas were raiders they were dependent upon the loots of other parts so as long their thirst was quenched they were good . They used the Hindu Pad Padshahi to consolidate themselves but the sheer amount of despicable thing they had done on Hindus forget muslims since they were there arch rivals( uncle toms like gardi is not accounted here) they were left alone during third battle and shown their rightful place.

 

[Joe Shearer]

And doesn't the blame rest upon Tipu's shoulder too? He himself failed to build good diplomatic relations with Nizam and Marathas.
@TheGreatMaratha @Joe Shearer @masterchief_mirza

We do not have to look very far for that to be understood.

Both his trooper father and he were insecure people. His father, as we all know, climbed the ranks one step at a time, proving his soldierly qualities every step of the way, until he became the Indian/Mysore equivalent of the Count of the Palace, the Carolingian to the Wodeyar Merovingians. He kept the Wodeyars alive but powerless, conducting their rituals and rites in pensioned idleness, while he built a firm foundation for his son and heir.

Tipu followed suit. He was never the flaming Islamist some contemporary neo-literates want him to be, nor was he the enlightened monarch, the Frederick the Great or Peter the Great that some other uber-literates position him to be. But he was the apple of his father's doting eye, and was brought up to be a combination of the Duke of Milan and a grand condottiere. Comparing him to these Italian princes is the closest match that we are likely to get in trying to match him with an existing type.

His campaigns were expansive, too expansive; he attacked or was attacked from all directions. He fought the Marathas, the Nizam, the little princelings on the coast, the British behind them, the little principalities dotting the boundaries of the Wodeyar-Hyder Ali realm, and the not-so-little principalities of the Kerala coast. He was an equal opportunity aggressor, and is visibly an icon to those who worship aggression.

So he was not going to get any relief from any quarter when the British finally decided to wipe him out. On the contrary, his strongest enemies thought of past wrongs and buckled down to helping the British, even with the sure knowledge that this would build up the foreign aggressor to a position of almost invulnerable strength in the Deccan.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Marathas were raiders they were dependent upon the loots of other parts so as long their thirst was quenched they were good .

Most kingdoms did the same thing. And raiding is what helped the Marathas expand rapidly. The Mughals were no different or the previous kingdoms were no different.

They used the Hindu Pad Padshahi to consolidate themselves but the sheer amount of despicable thing they had done on Hindus forget muslims since they were there arch rivals( uncle toms like gardi is not accounted here) they were left alone during third battle and shown their rightful place.

I'm certainly not proud about those 'despicable' things. Also, Marathas were still the dominant power even after the 3rd Battle of Panipat. Marathas built many temples but they didn't destroy mosques and build temples on that though.

 

[waz]

Ties based on historical brotherhood are invaluable. That's it, as the thread is more for Turkish and Indian posters.

If the Islamists loved the Ottomans so much they would not support the Greeks against Ataturk their own Ottoman officer.

How hard is it to drill this to peoples heads the Ottomans were dead. The Ottoman Empire of Yavuz, Suleyman and Fatih was long gone.

Thank God the Pasha came when he came;

 

[Naofumi]

Marathas were raiders they were dependent upon the loots of other parts so as long their thirst was quenched they were good . They used the Hindu Pad Padshahi to consolidate themselves but the sheer amount of despicable thing they had done on Hindus forget muslims since they were there arch rivals( uncle toms like gardi is not accounted here) they were left alone during third battle and shown their rightful place.

Avoid these strong words bro, history is not kind to anyone, nearly all of them (Mughals, Marathas or any other) were immoral people. Modern ethics were not applied then.

 

[Cliftonite]

And I hope Turkey does not and will not rethink it's relations with India. It will continue to side ferociously with Pakistan. Only Muslim countries like UAE, Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran can be double faced bastards and be pro India. Turkey is secular. Turkey emphasises nationalism. Turks know they have much to lose over 70 years relationship with not much to gain as Turkish Industry is competeting with Indian industry.

Note for the Pakistani's. some of the most ardent pro Pakistan Turks are athiest, uber Turkic Kemalists. And may they long live in Turkey.

View attachment 635169

Turkey has always been our greatest ally along with China. Turks are a grateful virtuous people, I have some family in Turkey, they had a Turkish friend whose mother sold her jewelry to donate to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake aid. To her, it was payback for the Muslims of subcontinent who paid in due during the Khilafat movement.

Can't speak for the Khomeini regime but for what it's worth, I've seen quite many pro Pakistani Iranians too. Bonding on the shared history of Persian and Urdu.

OTOH never seen one Arab who considers us as equals. Seen maybe some in the younger generation who are a bit more humble and forthcoming but for the older generations, we are all brown Hindoos.

 

[Path-Finder]

Jinnah was our Attaturk but he died before he could fully secularize Pakistan.
So we had to go through the 70s to now where the crazy conservatives took over the insane asylum.
Remember, Pakistan was the most prosperous when it was secular.

ahhh, wasn't phutto a man of the left in the 70's!