What's new

Why Türkiye should rethink its relations with India

And why do we want Turkey to sell us lethal weapons in the first place? I mean having good relationships are all fine and many Turks have less idea on Kashmir as they have their own issues in their neighborhood to deal with.
But except for drones and LHD's and probably few communication equipments there is nothing that Turkey does that India doesn't do. I mean we have ballistic missiles, SAM's and they don't have it doesn't mean they will buy it from India. They are integrated with NATO and being part of it has its own advantages.
As for relationships, India has to improve her Economy and become a inseparable part of any global supply chain. With money countries will come talking. India Turkey relationship can grow on its own speed. No hurries here.
Well, of course there is alternatives in the market, but wanna hear a funny thing? India imports more Turkish weapons than Pakistan... Of course, Milgem and T-129 will change that but as we speak, you are a better costumer, even when lethal weapon exports is banned.
 
We can start with cultural and economic relations.

Turkish boy sings Awara Hoon: So adorable

Haha, my friend made me watch this video nearly a year ago.
This is our Uzbek Turkish brothers singing Indian Bollywood song

GORON KI NA KALON KI - HAVAS guruhi

Uzebks are not Turkish though, they're Turkic.
 
This argument is weak though; Iqbal desired an Islamic revival, he saw Turkey among others like Amanullah's Afghanistan as light of hope but as can be seen from the text, he is not entirely sure of the "reconstruction", in fact in his other works he disapproved of "Ijtihad" largely and even took abolition of Caliphate very negatively.
THAT IN TIMES OF DECADENCE STRICT CONFORMITY IS BETTER THAN FREE SPECULATION
IQBAL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF ISLAMIC LAW

Further see this,

http://www.naseeb.com/journals/muhammad-iqbal-ataturk-and-the-secularist-lie-93974
@Cliftonite



What I say might trigger many of my countrymen. But I don't give credence to Iqbal's views on Ataturk. He was a blessing for Turkey. It's the best, most sorted out Muslim nation in the world thanks to his endeavors. Iqbal was more of a philosopher and not so much a nation maker. Baba Jinnah was our Ataturk, he took Iqbal's dream and made it a reality. Pakistan owes itself to him.
 
What I say might trigger many of my countrymen. But I don't give credence to Iqbal's views on Ataturk. He was a blessing for Turkey. It's the best, most sorted out Muslim nation in the world thanks to his endeavors. Iqbal was more of a philosopher and not so much a nation maker. Baba Jinnah was our Ataturk, he took Iqbal's dream and made it a reality. Pakistan owes itself to him.
If I say something I will get banned (happened in the past) but I like your summary too.
 
Are you really serious?

The Jinnahs, Gandhi And Khilafat
The following excerpt from Sheela Reddy's new book gives a glimpse into the dynamics of the relationship shared by Mr and Mrs Jinnah...

Jinnah was holidaying in Ooty with Ruttie from April 19 to June 3, 1920—Gandhi was giving him much more to worry about than merely proselytising. While Jinnah had been away in England for five months the previous year, Gandhi had once again changed tack and bounced back into the political mainstream by changing the rules entirely. He used a gambit that no politician before him had ever tried: uniting Hindus and Muslims by espousing a religious cause that concerned only Muslims. This was the ‘Khilafat’ issue. After the War, Indian Muslims were concerned over the fate of defeated Turkey facing dismemberment of its Ottoman empire and with it, the threat of their holy places in Arabia slipping from the custody of the Turkish Caliph into non-Muslim hands. The matter was serious enough to make Muslims want to protest against the peace treaty that the Allies were drawing up, especially because the British government was going back on its word given before the War that the Caliphate would not be disturbed.

In Jinnah’s view, the Khilafat question was unfortunate, but not really a political issue at all. Of course, he took an interest in it, representing to the government both in India and Britain, but it was more to appease his Muslim constituency than because his heart was in it. Gandhi, on the other hand, took it up with his usual missionary zeal. While Jinnah had been away, Gandhi had befriended the more radical Muslim leaders who wanted to fight for the Khilafat cause and had been spurring them on into forming their own organisation so that he could have their backing for his non-cooperation programme. He had become such a champion of the Khilafat cause that he started writing and speaking on it wherever he went. With his help and guidance, Khilafat committees sprang up in every province of the subcontinent. And by the time Jinnah returned, with his head full of the reforms bill and what could be done with it, Gandhi had effectively shifted public attention away from the reforms to the Khilafat issue. Even worse, the movement had acquired enough momentum for them to hold a political convention in Simla that was so big that it cast the Muslim League into shade. Representatives of every sect of Muslims from across the subcontinent were expected to attend, giving the convention a pan-Indian character that undermined the Muslim League’s importance.

On the surface, Jinnah showed no alarm at the developments. He was even able to put up a show of great liberality by expressing his ‘happiness’ at the growing signs of Hindu–Muslim unity, which he called the ‘most important thing necessary for success’ in an interview to the Bombay Chronicle the day after he landed. But his pride would not let him attend the conference in Simla, although he did receive an invitation. The prospect of being overshadowed by Gandhi at a Muslim conference was hardly an incentive.



jinnah_2_20170220.jpg
Jinnah was holidaying in Ooty with Ruttie (above) from April 19 to June 3, 1920. But Gandhi was giving him much more to worry about.

It was a mistake, though, to allow Gandhi to take the field by himself and emerge as a leader of both Hindus and Muslims. Gandhi had attended the Simla convention with prominent Hindu leaders and after that had stepped up his involvement with the Khilafat issue by writing newspaper articles and giving speeches. His call for a ‘Khilafat Day’ got a huge response from both Muslims and Hindus, enabling him to re-emerge as the tallest national leader. And by the following month in Amritsar, where the Congress and Muslim League were holding their annual sessions simultaneously, Jinnah was literally forced to take a back seat, sitting directly behind Gandhi at the Congress sessions and helping him steer a difficult resolution past his opponents in the Congress.

At the Muslim League’s convention also it was Gandhi’s protégés, the Ali brothers, who stole the limelight. They had just been freed from imprisonment and arrived midway through the session and the proceedings were interrupted as members stood up to welcome them with loud cheers of ‘Allahu Akbar!’ The older of the two brothers, Shaukat Ali, took over the stage, delivering a thundering speech that called on ‘forty lakhs of Mussalmans to come forward and die for their religion’ while the audience fell to weeping at his words. His brother, Mohammed Ali, followed with another tearful speech and on that high note of emotion, regular proceedings had to be suspended for the day.

At the Khilafat conference, which was the highlight of this Congress session, Jinnah was again sidelined. He sat on the platform squeezed between dozens of Gandhi’s supporters, both Hindu and Muslim, facing a record 16,000 Muslims who had turned up at Gandhi’s call. He listened impassively as Gandhi demonstrated the power of speaking in Urdu rather than English, outshining even the Ali brothers, who were meant to be the star attraction. Gandhi’s speech delivered in his diligently acquired Urdu was of such ‘incredible power and lucidity’, as the Bombay Chronicle reported the next day, that ‘he captured the Muslim heart and mind’.

After Amritsar, Gandhi stepped up his Khilafat campaign even further and went on an extensive tour with the Ali brothers in order to rally support for the cause among Hindus across the country. Gandhi had once again cast Jinnah into a major dilemma: he could not afford to detach himself from the Khilafat cause because of its significance to Muslims; yet he did not want to yield to pressure from Gandhi or Gandhi’s Muslim friends. His reason pulled one way while his pride pulled in the opposite direction. But he kept his troubles close to himself as was his habit.

https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/the-jinnahs-gandhi-and-khilafat/298451



Yeah but the fact is Russia has been selling engines for your JF-17s which will be used against India.
Indian leaders specially Gandhi is verhyped on the khilafat issue. If that dude was a saint he would have pushed for equal representation of Muslims and Hindus in the parliament along with zinnah and not let the country break away to form Pakistan because there wouldn’t have been a need for a Muslim state. Fat of the matter is he remained quite when the extremist pushed for a Hindu state... its only later India had to declare itself secular to prevent further fragmentation

You know one of our brother country is South Korea, right? We care about how people treat us, not their religion.
In that case turkey will never establish relations with extremist India that shows Barbaric scales of violence against Muslims
Children of Ataturk might
 
We can start with cultural and economic relations.

Turkish boy sings Awara Hoon: So adorable



Is He gonna start a #TurkeyeBoycottsHindutvaIndia trend?

I can see awara twitteratis doing it
 
As long as the Turkish govt poked it's nose on Kashmir,I would say no .infact if they do we should also start talking about Kurdistan.:-)
otherwise we have no issues with turkey.

You are overestimating your influence in the region. Solid economic relations are the foundation of good bilateral relations, so let the investments continue and prosperity and peace for everyone.
 
This argument is weak though; Iqbal desired an Islamic revival, he saw Turkey among others like Amanullah's Afghanistan as light of hope but as can be seen from the text, he is not entirely sure of the "reconstruction", in fact in his other works he disapproved of "Ijtihad" largely and even took abolition of Caliphate very negatively.
THAT IN TIMES OF DECADENCE STRICT CONFORMITY IS BETTER THAN FREE SPECULATION
IQBAL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF ISLAMIC LAW

Further see this,

http://www.naseeb.com/journals/muhammad-iqbal-ataturk-and-the-secularist-lie-93974
@Cliftonite

The biggest proof is his book. You can quote any website you like. Iqbal was a staunch believer in Pan Islamism in the beginning, however, his ideas changed over time as a philosopher. His book is there to read, you know.
 
The biggest proof is his book. You can quote any website you like. Iqbal was a staunch believer in Pan Islamism in the beginning, however, his ideas changed over time as a philosopher. His book is there to read, you know.
Iqbal was a Pan Islamist through and through, which works of him are a clear statement against that?
 
Iqbal was a Pan Islamist through and through, which works of him are a clear statement against that?

No, he wasn't. He was pan Islamist at the beginning. Towards the end he believed in nationalism but not extreme nationalism, he believed that there should be a balance; love for one's nation, but also a sense of unity for when time calls it. He was though not agreed on secularism, he had a different idea on that.

I also checked the text I quoted, it is actually one of his late pieces, that is after the establishment of the Republic and westernization policies. you quoted just some hardcore Islamist website.
 

Back
Top Bottom