brotherly relationship between Pakistan and Turkey, and Khilafat Movement

[Watani]

^ And you MIGHT be thinking you know every single Pakistani and every single Afghan, so why accuse anyone else of doing the same? I could have met exceptions in Hayatabad, Swat, Malakand, and every other place I have been too. My friends could be exceptions too, not to forget so could be my relatives. Oh, and those family and friends I got living in Pakhtunkhwa, even they could be exception. Right? Get real dude! With exceptions I mean people who are being judgemental, misinformed, misunderstood, etcetera, who usually are minorities but because they are active in spreading negativities they give a wrong image of huge majority. Which is not true. I ain't slandering anyone, nor contradicting, nor making anything up since I have made these very similar comments even back in those days I joined the forum. My thoughts might have changed slightly, my experience hasn't.

 

[EjazR]

Yes, I have also read that Jinnah was not in favour of this Movement. So, in your opinion the Khilafat movement has nothing to do with the cordial relationship?

At the end of the day, relationship between states are based on self-interests, and those states who don't follow that, are bound to suffer the consequences (of not looking after their self-interests). This does not mean other states should be harmed for promoting self-interest ofcourse.

Also by Khilafat movement here, I am referring specifically to the Khilafat/Non-cooperation movement launched by INC and other leaders at that time.
It was this mass non-coooperation movement or satygrah that was opposed by Jinnah and Muslim League leadership. Jinnah also wanted a proper settlement to the Khilafat question and he along with ML elites wanted to sent deputation to the Crown and deal with it constitutionally. They did not want any agitations or protest or any non-cooperation against the British rule.

On the other hand, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Punjab passing ofthe Rowlatt act to curb protests and on top of that the way despite Indian support the British has in a way reneged on the understanding that India would recieve self-rule had fuled hardliners and Khilafat question just added more fuel to the already explosive situation.

It was in this context that the Khilafat/Non-cooperation movement was launched, and is remembered as one of the high points of Hindu-Muslim cooperation against British rule in India. To try to understand the Khilafat movement in isolation with the Non-cooperation/Satyagrah movement will not allow you to see the whole picture.

I was wondering in what sense you used the word "nationalist" in the above context. Perhaps, you meant that they were in favour of united India or were of the thinking to see all the Muslim countries as one nation?

By nationalist, I mean those who did not support sepratism and were against the British rule in India. Hence nationalist Indians. Keep in mind that a lot of non-muslim Indians also supported the Khilafat aims including Rajagopalachari, Lala Lajpat Rai and ofcourse Gandhi.

Turkey still takes the relationship with Pakistan very seriously. I think AKP is (or, perhaps never was) on good terms with Turkish army. So, if the base of this relationship is purely because of historical connections between the militaries of both countries, then I don't think AKP would like Pakistan relation much.

By the way, in the past Pakistanis didn't require a visa for Turkey but then it was made mandatory on the insistence of the Pakistan government and the prime reason for this insistence was human trafficking.

But Turkey is still very much on the side of Pakistan. About a year or so ago there was some kind of conference about Afghanistan in Turkey. And India wasn't invited there. Turkey has been trying to establish good connections almost with every Asian country.

Yes ofcourse, I am not saying that Turkey and Pakistan have cut off relations, but the unquestioned support in Cold war and hostility to India being percieved to be in the Soviet camp is no longer there.
AKP, I would believe, will build relationships with both Pakistan and India but would avoid taking a hard stand on issues like Kashmir.

At the moment, Pakistan's biggest problem is to bring a sense of stability back in the country. Without that no country would be willing to step out on a limb except if they had a strategic interest there. Hence you see the biggest aid/donors/supporters of Pakistan being US and China both for their own strategic reasons.

The same reasons apply for Turkey trying to improve relations with China and India, two countries with which it had hardly any relations just 20 years back. Comparing the diplomatic relations of India and Turkey to about 20 years back, there has been a huge improvement and its about taking advantage of the economy and infuence of India in international foras.

 

[EjazR]

I want you to answer me with some honour and dignity,how many times has india been "divided" since india's creation in 1947?

those muslims of 1920's you speak about were not "indian muslims",they were muslims of british indian empire.

I am not sure what you mean by the first question but defintely they all refferred themselves as Indian musims. Not British Indian Muslims.

At the grave of Muhammed ali Jauhar one of the founders of Khilafat movement, it says As-Sayyid Muhammed Ali Al-Hindi meaning "Muhammed Ali the Indian". No mention of British empire there.

He was a very religious muslim but also prized his Indian indentity. Hence the famous quote just a few years before his death
“I belong to two circles of equal size, but which are not concentric. One is India, and the other is the Muslim world…We as Indian Muslims belong to these two circles, each of more than 300 millions, and we can leave neither. - Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar”

Note:
each of more than 300 millions refers to the fact that at that time the global muslim population was more than 300 million but also the total (undivided)Indian population was also more than 300 million and both were equally important.

 

[MyPakistan1947]

I am not sure what you mean by the first question but defintely they all refferred themselves as Indian musims. Not British Indian Muslims.

At the grave of Muhammed ali Jauhar one of the founders of Khilafat movement, it says As-Sayyid Muhammed Ali Al-Hindi meaning "Muhammed Ali the Indian". No mention of British empire there.

He was a very religious muslim but also prized his Indian indentity. Hence the famous quote just a few years before his death
“I belong to two circles of equal size, but which are not concentric. One is India, and the other is the Muslim world…We as Indian Muslims belong to these two circles, each of more than 300 millions, and we can leave neither. - Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar”

Note:
each of more than 300 millions refers to the fact that at that time the global muslim population was more than 300 million but also the total (undivided)Indian population was also more than 300 million and both were equally important.

you know exactly what i mean.

this question has been answered to you time and time again by pakistani members on this forum,but you keep bringing this up again and again.

the elites of the british indian empire referd to themselves as "indians" because they had to obey by the british rules.

the common people of punjab,sindh,khyber pakhtunkwa,balochistan did not refer to themselves as "indian".

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Unfortunately, this false survey that you posted does not translate into the everyday Pakistani life or working conditions. I have never seen or heard of anyone getting stoned, I've never heard of anyone getting their hands chopped off for theft, & I've never seen killed for leaving Islam. There are many things that need to be looked at when you take a survey: you see the sample size (population), you see if the samples are representative of the entire population etc. I am willing to believe these results might be true for certain FATA regions where the Taliban have strongholds & there is no writ of the government, but no other part of Pakistan. An Islamic party has never been brought into power by the Pakistani people. Zardari's PPP, MQM, ANP & most parties in Pakistan are quite secular in nature.

Your analysis is totally wrong... You need to get out and meet some more people... Majority of people simply dont vote in these sham elections in which the option is one wadera or another... Islamic parties in Pakistan like elsewhere are a joke as they are as corrupt as the rest... so you cant base an argument about Islam looking at how well or unwell these parties do in elections...

People in Pakistan want Islam... and that is after all the years of oppression from Musharaf's moderate Islam BS...

or for that matter Zia's extremist Islam BS

 

[Vinod2070]

So Iqbal also wrote this to follow the British rules?

Saare jahan se achchha Hindostan hamaraa

 

[MyPakistan1947]

So Iqbal also wrote this to follow the British rules?

Saare jahan se achchha Hindostan hamaraa

ofcourse Iqbal had to follow the british rules.he did not have any other choice.

and at the time he wrote "Saare jahan se achchha Hindostan hamaraa", he wrote this for the whole of the subcontinent, he did not write that poem for a country. and i dont see why you indians always have to make a big deal about this poem by Iqbal. He wrote many other poems for the whole of the muslim world. he was a poet and it was his job.

 

[Vinod2070]

ofcourse Iqbal had to follow the british rules.he did not have any other choice.

and at the time he wrote "Saare jahan se achchha Hindostan hamaraa", he wrote this for the whole of the subcontinent, he did not write that poem for a country. and i dont see why you indians always have to make a big deal about this poem by Iqbal. He wrote many other poems for the whole of the muslim world. he was a poet and it was his job.

Whatever floats your boat!

Mazhab nahi sikhata apas main bair rakhana.

 

[MyPakistan1947]

i dont understand why indians make a big deal about this.

only in 1947(when india was created) "indian" became a nationality.

before 1947,the elites of the british indian empire may have called themselves "indians" but not the common people of the british indian empire.the common people of the british indian empire used their ethnicity to describe themselves, whether punjabis,sindhis,kashmiris,balochis, ect.

the british and invaders gave this name "indian".

 

[Vinod2070]

You are not the one to decide that!

Your Mr. Jinnah and Iqbal called themselves Indians for most of their lives. Ethnicity was a small part of the identity.

Its like an apostate taking the responsibility to define Islam! You are apostates as far as we are concerned.

 

[MyPakistan1947]

You are not the one to decide that!

Your Mr. Jinnah and Iqbal called themselves Indians for most of their lives. Ethnicity was a small part of the identity.

Its like an apostate taking the responsibility to define Islam! You are apostates as far as we are concerned.

this is exactly what am saying.

jinnah and iqbal were elites of the british indian empire.They had to obey the rules and laws given by the british.

 

[Vinod2070]

this is exactly what am saying.

jinnah and iqbal were elites of the british indian empire.They had to obey the rules and laws given by the british.

You are funny!

The British had a law to make people call themselves Indians and write praise of "Hindostan"!

Whatever floats your boat. We know what we are and the apostates with lost identity are not going to decide it.

 

[MyPakistan1947]

The British had a law to make people call themselves Indians and write praise of "Hindostan"!

yes ofcourse.it was the british empire,the brits were the masters.

whilst in the presence of the british you had to call yourself "indian",because this was the name given by the british masters.

Whatever floats your boat. We know what we are and the apostates with lost identity are not going to decide it.

right then,call yourself "indians",but its a smack on the face of your ancestors who were treated lower than dogs by the british.

 

[Bhim]

History ki to aisi taisi kar di inhone, just to find an identity..

 

[Vinod2070]

yes ofcourse.it was the british empire,the brits were the masters.

right then,call yourself "indians", but its a smack on the face of your ancestors who were treated lower than dogs by the british.

Don't worry about the label so much! India is just a Western name for an ancient land and civilization.