brotherly relationship between Pakistan and Turkey, and Khilafat Movement

[MyPakistan1947]

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

im thinking the same about you indians.

if you can prove me wrong,then prove me worng.instead of throwing cheap insults.

 

[MyPakistan1947]

@ Vinod2070.

you make it look like you dont care about my opinion.then why reply me? why not prove me wrong instead of insulting me and repeating the same questions?

 

[Vinod2070]

@ Vinod2070.

you make it look like you dont care about my opinion.then why reply me? why not prove me wrong instead of insulting me and repeating the same questions?

Where did I insult you?

I just said that you are not in the best position to define an "Indian" identity like you may not think of Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the best position to define the religion she left behind.

 

[MyPakistan1947]

Where did I insult you?

I just said that you are not in the best position to define an "Indian" identity like you may not think of Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the best position to define the religion she left behind.

were indians really that much identity-less that they had to adopt a name given by invaders?

this is what i mean by cheap insults..why you bringing islam into the discussion? ayaan hirsi ali can say whatever she wants about islam,i dont care about her cheap attempts to gain some fame.

 

[chharoonahmad]

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.


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.


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.

I genuinely thank you for your detailed reply. Now I'm sure they have told me the wrong reasons for the cordial relationship. I knew there is something wrong in their reasons. Why would the Turkish people care much about the 'efforts' of the Indian Muslims to safeguard the institution of the Khilafat when they didn't care (much) about it themselves and when the very integrity of their own country after the WWI was at risk.

Please correct me if you find something wrong in the above text. Thanks.

With best wishes
Haroon

 

[Al-zakir]

There is a lot of Islamic sentiment in Turkey... this is a very ignorant statement to make... Infact the majority of Turkey has now shifted from a secular world view to an Islamic world view... Its only a matter of leadership when it comes... People are ready and prepared for the change...

I agree that there are Islamic sentiment among conservative Turkish. As a matter of fact, I have met few with such sentiment here in US. I hope you are right and Turks should continue to support Islamic rooted party like Adalet ve Kalkınma.

 

[somebozo]

the khilafat movement is as high as a delusional fool can get. I sat in a lecuture about khilafat by some scholar arrived some germany and after first two mintues it was extremely obvious that this man has no idea what he was talking and his appeal would be only among delusional fools

 

[EjazR]

I genuinely thank you for your detailed reply. Now I'm sure they have told me the wrong reasons for the cordial relationship. I knew there is something wrong in their reasons. Why would the Turkish people care much about the 'efforts' of the Indian Muslims to safeguard the institution of the Khilafat when they didn't care (much) about it themselves and when the very integrity of their own country after the WWI was at risk.

Please correct me if you find something wrong in the above text. Thanks.

With best wishes
Haroon

I am sure there will be some peple in Turkey who would genuinely be thankful for the support they received by Muslims as well as non-muslims during the Khilafat movement at least as a gesture of their support even though they themselves did not have a positive outlook to the Caliph of Turkey at that time. But at the state level, close collaboration due to "Khilafat movement" is just not the reason.

Like I mentioned the Cold war era alliances like CENTO and Baghdad pact laid the foundations of close co-operation with countries allied to the US. This includes countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran during the Shah all of who have had cordial relations with Pakistan. And most of these relationships are fortunately or unfortunately from a military to military and security perspective. One of the reasons why you had Pakistani divisions and soldiers stationed in Gulf countries or Jordan. Even recently during the unrest, you have seen requests for soldiers and security personnel by Gulf countries from Pakistan which is an outcome of that security-based relationship. On the other hand countries which were under the Soviet camp/anti-US camp like Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Iran after the Shah e.t.c. did not have good relations with Pakistan as compared to say India.

 

[Vinod2070]

were indians really that much identity-less that they had to adopt a name given by invaders?

The Westerners have called the country India for thousands of years. The Arabs called it Hindustan and we called it Bharat (and Aryavarta earlier).

I see no issues with any name. Most countries are called by different names in different languages. We didn't change the name in English while in Hindi it is called Bharat.

Why would you worry so much about the name of our country anyway?

this is what i mean by cheap insults..why you bringing islam into the discussion? ayaan hirsi ali can say whatever she wants about islam,i dont care about her cheap attempts to gain some fame.

Same way, I can't be bothered with what some Pakistanis chose to think of India.