The unification of the Arabian Peninsula?

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

Other than UAE(since 2016 failed coup in Turkey sponsored by emiratis) Egypt(post 2013 coup) and Saudi(since 2017 qatar rift accelerated after khasoggi 2018) i don’t see other arab countries being openly hostile towards Turkey
boxed in by Russia and Iran is interesting claim if you follow only sputnik and hezbollah pages but if you see geopolitical challenges Turkey has faced and the outcomes I would say things are so far good enough for turks it could’ve been better if key allies such US didn’t supported terrosists but i guess in every crisis there’s opportunity that opportunity was tactical temporary partnership with russians
if you start now with the February attack this isn’t geopolitical way of viewing things that would be a talk about who has killed more and it would turn into unnecessary conversation

Arabs and Turks (people) are not enemies and share a lot of common history, culture, ancestry (DNA), geography, religion etc. There are ancient Arab communities in Anatolia and Anatolia and its people have always had close historical, people to people ties to people of the Arab world (Arab Near East) which explains why the oldest Turkish cities are found near the border to Syria and Iraq. Turkish Arabs are one of the largest minorities in Turkey if not the largest after the Kurds. There are also Anatolian/Turkish minorities in the Arab world since a very long time (since 1000 + years ago already) from Yemen to Algeria, now intermarried. Turkmens in Iraq and Syria are basically a fusion between Arabs and Turks.

There would be no hostility among Erdogan ruled Turkey and Arab governments/regimes if not for Erdogan's MB agenda if you ask me. Just like there were no problems prior to Erdogan. Turkey might have had problems with Hafiz ruled Syria (based on the whole Hatay/Iskenderun controversy) but that was about it. However we can't deny, something that is also seen by some Turkish users on PDF, that there are elements in the Turkish elite that want to play the Neo-Ottoman card in the Arab world and that will obviously create hostility. Anyway we had this discussion in the Libya Civil War thread.

Honestly, I see no reason why Arabs and Turkey should be enemies. That is not the case even today despite some political disagreements. I am talking about people to people - minus the extremists/ultra-nationalists on both sides. Arabs are way low on the "Turkish list of historical enemies" similar to Turks being way low on the "Arab list of historical enemies" even within the region and vice versa.

My two cents, in a thread, where off-topic posts were doomed to occur eventually although I enjoyed my discussion with @OsmanAli98

I think the whole thing with the Turks is more recent thanks to "Erdogan " sounding like he is the leader of the "ummah", mix in nostalgia



Albeit a very sub par "one" you have managed to piss every Arab neighbor you had and got boxed in by the Russians and Iranians

I am curious do you think that the average Pakistani knows the historical, ethnic, cultural, geographic etc. difference between Turkey/Anatolia and Turkic nations in Central Asia next to Pakistan? Often I get the impression that many Pakistani users here think that Turkey = Central Asia. I don't want to offend any Turkish user here unnecessary (the whole DNA and Turkification stuff - I know identity has little to do with DNA/origin nowadays) but I often see posts where somehow Mughals, Mongols, Timur etc. is somehow tied to modern-day Turkey and Turkish people when they have nothing to do with each other.

If you are talking about unification of only Arabian peninsula then how come this country will become second largest land mass???

Arabia peninsula has Saudi with roughly 22 lacs sq km territory, Oman around 3 lacs sq km, Yemen around 5.5 lacs sq km, UAE around 84k sq km, Qatar and Bahrain 13k sq km put together gives you a landmass equal to India and bigger than Argentina... if you add Iraq, Jordan,Syria and Lebanon as a part of peninsula then you get additional territory roughly equal to Egypt.... still this country will be smaller than Brazil and Australia let alone very large countries like China, Russia, Canada.... and coastal lines will still be smaller to Australia, Russia, Canada not the longest in the world.... I think you should change the title from Arabia peninsula to entire Arabian world which is from Arabian peninsula till Morocco... in that case certainly your country will be second largest and yes most powerful after USA, Russia my friend...

My "single federal Arab state" comment in the beginning of my post should be a giveaway as well as me asking to rename the thread title to what I suggested it should be renamed to.

Otherwise you are obviously right.

However if the Arabian Peninsula (the definition of that is not unanimous either, historically/geographically it includes most of Jordan, most of Iraq, Sinai and Southern and Eastern Syria and if geologically you can include the entire Arabian Plate which would include large parts of Turkey and Iran even but that is just an example for the sake of it) was united into a single state, whether federal or not, it would be a formidable state on its own. The current definition of the Peninsula is mostly a political one. Have that in mind in the future.

Anyway a lot of historical events are based on timing. The conditions that enabled India to unite in 1947, where not present in the Arab world at that time. For instance do you believe (I am curious to hear your reply) it would be possible to unite modern-day India into a federal state if the pre-1947 borders of India (with the pre-1947 rulers in place) had existed today (2020)? My personal take is that it would be many times more difficult than an attempt to unite the 20 + Arab countries of today given the much greater racial, ethnic, religious etc. diversity in India/South Asia and the many times more states present in pre-1947 India.

So as an Indian I would just recommend you Indians (Russians, Americans, Chinese etc.) to cherish the current status quo albeit it might not be perfect. The alternative would have been far worse if the goal was/is to be a potentially world player and if the goal is/was unity. My two quick cents.

Similarly advice for all Pakistanis, do not allow yourself to be divided into ethnic groups, clans, tribes etc.

 

[vishwambhar]

You must be high on something. Only 1/3 of the Arab world was ever a part of the thoroughly Arabized Ottoman entity either in name only or de facto.

Prior to that most of the Arab world was united for centuries and various regions in the Arab world were part of the same ancient indigenous civilizations, caliphates, empires, kingdoms, sultanates, emirates, sheikdoms, imamates for millennia.

This thread is not intended for ridiculous troll posts of that nature.



My "single federal Arab state" comment in the beginning of my post should be a giveaway as well as me asking to rename the thread title to what I suggested it should be renamed to.

Otherwise you are obviously right.

However if the Arabian Peninsula (the definition of that is not unanimous either, historically/geographically it includes most of Jordan, most of Iraq, Sinai and Southern and Eastern Syria and if geologically you can include the entire Arabian Plate which would include large parts of Turkey and Iran even but that is just an example for the sake of it) was united into a single state, whether federal or not, it would be a formidable state on its own. The current definition of the Peninsula is mostly a political one. Have that in mind in the future.

Anyway a lot of historical events are based on timing. The conditions that enabled India to unite in 1947, where not present in the Arab world at that time. For instance do you believe (I am curious to hear your reply) it would be possible to unite modern-day India into a federal state if the pre-1947 borders of India (with the pre-1947 rulers in place) had existed today (2020)? My personal take is that it would be many times more difficult than an attempt to unite the 20 + Arab countries of today given the much greater racial, ethnic, religious etc. diversity in India/South Asia and the many times more states present in pre-1947 India.

So as an Indian I would just recommend you Indians (Russians, Americans, Chinese etc.) to cherish the current status quo albeit it might not be perfect. The alternative would have been far worse if the goal was/is to be a potentially world player and if the goal is/was unity. My two quick cents.

My friend.... it would have been next to impossible to establish today's Indian union in 2020 if pre 1947 borders and leaders of those princely states were existing today. India would not have been as large country as its today... we were lucky that situation in 1947 made many such states to join Indian union willingly but thanks to our national hero Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who took a strong stance against some states such as Junagadh, Hyderabad.....

Goa (my native state) we had to militarily liberate from Portugal occupation.... Kashmir whole world knows.... but if Indian leadership of that time had failed to show courage what it could show that time under Vallabhbhai Patel then in today's modern world India map would have been totally different....

Btw you said that Arab peninsula consists of some parts of Turkey and Iran.... are you talking about Kurdish territory in these countries? Can Kurds be considered as arabs?

 

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

My friend.... it would have been next to impossible to establish today's Indian union in 2020 if pre 1947 borders and leaders of those princely states were existing today. India would not have been as large country as its today... we were lucky that situation in 1947 made many such states to join Indian union willingly but thanks to our national hero Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who took a strong stance against some states such as Junagadh, Hyderabad.....

Goa (my native state) we had to militarily liberate from Portugal occupation.... Kashmir whole world knows.... but if Indian leadership of that time had failed to show courage what it could show that time under Vallabhbhai Patel then in today's modern world India map would have been totally different....

Btw you said that Arab peninsula consists of some parts of Turkey and Iran.... are you talking about Kurdish territory in these countries? Can Kurds be considered as arabs?

Thank you for your post and answer. I would appreciate if you could somehow elaborate on all those historical events as I find it interesting. Similarly with the Pakistani angle of course.

Kurds are a separate ethnic group although Kurds have been heavily influenced by Arabs (neighbors after all) and intermarriages have been taking place for many centuries as well as genetic closeness (I am talking about Kurds in Syria and Iraq - the two Arab countries were Kurds live). Relations have been cordial, good, complicate and bad at times depending on the time period. Mostly bad in recent years (Saddam, Syrian civil war).

No, I was referring to the Arabian Plate (tectonic place)

which some geologists use as regional definitions but I mentioned it for the fun of it and to show you that the modern day definition of the Arabian Peninsula is a political one not a historical/geographical/cultural/ethnic/tribal/clan etc. one. and that there are many definitions of the Arabian Peninsula as such.

Lastly, apropos the unification of modern-day India and the abolishment of all those kingdoms and princely states (I know mostly about the Nawab of Hyderabad - his family apparently claimed Arab ancestry and he used to employ Yemeni soldiers - apparently there is an Yemeni community in Hyderabad to this day), can we not say that this unification in many ways occurred through force and that few locals/people were consulted?

Was it the move of the founding fathers of India purely or did a push for one India (I mean the borders were fought over violently - many people have read about the unfortunate events that occurred and population transfers between Pakistan and India) have a massive local following?

Could we also consider this as some sort of uprising against the feudal/ruling elite by the masses? What role did Indian Muslims play in this? I am quite frankly not fully versed on the inner details of this but it could serve as an inspiration in the Arab context as I find it perplexing that one of the most diverse regions in the world (India) in terms of ethnic groups, languages, cultures, religions, clans, tribes etc. is somehow 1 single country and that occurring only in 1947. From my historical knowledge of the history of what is today India, much of the territory was always divided into many principalities and kingdoms and very rarely united completely if ever (as in today). Just a quick elaboration if you don't mind.

I remember there was an Indian historian on PDF once. @Joe Shearer if I recall. Maybe he can contribute here if he sees my post and bothers to read it.

@prashantazazel or any other Indian user around of potential help

 

[vishwambhar]

Thank you for your post and answer. I would appreciate if you could somehow elaborate on all those historical events as I find it interesting. Similarly with the Pakistani angle of course.

Kurds are a separate ethnic group although Kurds have been heavily influenced by Arabs (neighbors after all) and intermarriages have been taking place for many centuries as well as genetic closeness (I am talking about Kurds in Syria and Iraq - the two Arab countries were Kurds live). Relations have been cordial, good, complicate and bad at times depending on the time period. Mostly bad in recent years (Saddam, Syrian civil war).

No, I was referring to the Arabian Plate (tectonic place)

which some geologists use as regional definitions but I mentioned it for the fun of it and to show you that the modern day definition of the Arabian Peninsula is a political one not a historical/geographical/cultural/ethnic/tribal/clan etc. one. and that there are many definitions of the Arabian Peninsula as such.

Lastly, apropos the unification of modern-day India and the abolishment of all those kingdoms and princely states (I know mostly about the Nawab of Hyderabad - his family apparently claimed Arab ancestry and he used to employ Yemeni soldiers - apparently there is an Yemeni community in Hyderabad to this day), can we not say that this unification in many ways occurred through force and that few locals/people were consulted?

Was it the move of the founding fathers of India purely or did a push for one India (I mean the borders were fought over violently - many people have read about the unfortunate events that occurred and population transfers between Pakistan and India) have a massive local following?

Could we also consider this as some sort of uprising against the feudal/ruling elite by the masses? What role did Indian Muslims play in this? I am quite frankly not fully versed on the inner details of this but it could serve as an inspiration in the Arab context as I find it perplexing that one of the most diverse regions in the world (India) in terms of ethnic groups, languages, cultures, religions, clans, tribes etc. is somehow 1 single country and that occurring only in 1947. From my historical knowledge of the history of what is today India, much of the territory was always divided into many principalities and kingdoms and very rarely united completely if ever (as in today). Just a quick elaboration if you don't mind.

I remember there was an Indian historian on PDF once. @Joe Shearer if I recall. Maybe he can contribute here if he sees my post and bothers to read it.

@prashantazazel or any other Indian user around of potential help

Sure I will try to brief you on those historical events....

Junagadh: when British created India and Pakistan there were still many princely states in these countries who were neither part of India nor Pakistan.... they had their own kings or rulers... they had choice to either join India or Pakistan or remain a separate country.... some states willingly joined India some to Pakistan.... however some states such as Kashmir, junagadh, Hyderabad preferred to remain separate... Goa still was under Portuguese rule... however in later stage junagadh ruler Muhammad Khanji inclined to join Pakistan against the will of majority of people in state.... geographically too it wasn't sharing borders with Pakistan... ii would have been an exclave of Pakistan on mainland India had it joined Pakistan.... also in order to avoid further communal tensions in the region Sardar Patel ordered forcible annexation of junagadh and later plebiscite was conducted in which 99.95% people voted to join India over Pakistan....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Junagadh

Hyderabad:

At the time of Partition in 1947, the princely states of India, who in principle had self-government within their own territories, were subject to subsidiary alliances with the British, giving them control of their external relations. In the Indian Independence Act 1947 the British abandoned all such alliances, leaving the states with the option of opting for full independence.[11][12] However, by 1948 almost all had acceded to either India or Pakistan. One major exception was that of the wealthiest and most powerful principality, Hyderabad, where the Nizam, Osman Ali Khan, Asaf Jah VII, a Muslim ruler who presided over a largely Hindu population, chose independence and hoped to maintain this with an irregular army recruited from the Muslim aristocracy, known as the Razakars.[13]:224 The Nizam was also beset by the Telangana uprising, which he was unable to subjugate.[13]:224

In November 1947, Hyderabad signed a standstill agreement with the dominion of India, continuing all previous arrangements except for the stationing of Indian troops in the state. However, with the rise of militant razakars, India found it necessary to station Indian troops and invaded the state in September 1948 to compel the Nizam.[14] Subsequently, the Nizam signed an instrument of accession, joining India.[15]

Goa :
After independence in 1947 till 1961 Goa was under Portuguese occupation... it was an exclave of Portugal thousands of miles away from them on India mainland which was utter nonsense on India's part to even tolerate even till 1961.... the land belonged to gomantak tribe of Hindus and by which authority Portugal was ruling Goa??? There were no signs of Portuguese handing it over to India and they continued to torture the locals... Finally in December 1961 India launched operation Vijay in which Indian forces attacked Goa with troops, air force and navy and Goa finally was merged to Indian union.....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa

About your question of how much local support was involved in such mergers and how much actual push was given by expansionist minds in Indian govt is debatable.... people who are against these mergers will come with their valid points and people in favor (including me) will counter that with our theories.... endless debate friend...

@Joeshearer if you can further shed some light on this it would be a great help...

 

[prashantazazel]

Thank you for your post and answer. I would appreciate if you could somehow elaborate on all those historical events as I find it interesting. Similarly with the Pakistani angle of course.

Kurds are a separate ethnic group although Kurds have been heavily influenced by Arabs (neighbors after all) and intermarriages have been taking place for many centuries as well as genetic closeness (I am talking about Kurds in Syria and Iraq - the two Arab countries were Kurds live). Relations have been cordial, good, complicate and bad at times depending on the time period. Mostly bad in recent years (Saddam, Syrian civil war).

No, I was referring to the Arabian Plate (tectonic place)

which some geologists use as regional definitions but I mentioned it for the fun of it and to show you that the modern day definition of the Arabian Peninsula is a political one not a historical/geographical/cultural/ethnic/tribal/clan etc. one. and that there are many definitions of the Arabian Peninsula as such.

Lastly, apropos the unification of modern-day India and the abolishment of all those kingdoms and princely states (I know mostly about the Nawab of Hyderabad - his family apparently claimed Arab ancestry and he used to employ Yemeni soldiers - apparently there is an Yemeni community in Hyderabad to this day), can we not say that this unification in many ways occurred through force and that few locals/people were consulted?

Was it the move of the founding fathers of India purely or did a push for one India (I mean the borders were fought over violently - many people have read about the unfortunate events that occurred and population transfers between Pakistan and India) have a massive local following?

Could we also consider this as some sort of uprising against the feudal/ruling elite by the masses? What role did Indian Muslims play in this? I am quite frankly not fully versed on the inner details of this but it could serve as an inspiration in the Arab context as I find it perplexing that one of the most diverse regions in the world (India) in terms of ethnic groups, languages, cultures, religions, clans, tribes etc. is somehow 1 single country and that occurring only in 1947. From my historical knowledge of the history of what is today India, much of the territory was always divided into many principalities and kingdoms and very rarely united completely if ever (as in today). Just a quick elaboration if you don't mind.

I remember there was an Indian historian on PDF once. @Joe Shearer if I recall. Maybe he can contribute here if he sees my post and bothers to read it.

@prashantazazel or any other Indian user around of potential help

I'm writing from memory (of the various articles I have read on this subject over time).
An extremely small portion of what's is current day India was captured by force.
In Goa, daman and Diu, the fight was against the imperial forces, and there was no significant local opposition.
In hyderabad, there was significant opposition from local Muslims. But Hyderabad is a small place. The resistance was quickly overwhelmed.
There was a lot of fighting between the Hindus and Muslims during those times, and it is hard to place the blame on one side.
Most of our annexations were fairly logical, since we captured areas which had geographical continuity with our main landmass.
We don't see significant separatist movements outside of Kashmir anymore. If a large community wants to govern themselves, they try to divide the state into two. For Eg- Andhra pradesh and Telangana. The idea of separation from the nation is not popular here.

 

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

Sure I will try to brief you on those historical events....

Junagadh: when British created India and Pakistan there were still many princely states in these countries who were neither part of India nor Pakistan.... they had their own kings or rulers... they had choice to either join India or Pakistan or remain a separate country.... some states willingly joined India some to Pakistan.... however some states such as Kashmir, junagadh, Hyderabad preferred to remain separate... Goa still was under Portuguese rule... however in later stage junagadh ruler Muhammad Khanji inclined to join Pakistan against the will of majority of people in state.... geographically too it wasn't sharing borders with Pakistan... ii would have been an exclave of Pakistan on mainland India had it joined Pakistan.... also in order to avoid further communal tensions in the region Sardar Patel ordered forcible annexation of junagadh and later plebiscite was conducted in which 99.95% people voted to join India over Pakistan....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Junagadh

Hyderabad:


Goa :
After independence in 1947 till 1961 Goa was under Portuguese occupation... it was an exclave of Portugal thousands of miles away from them on India mainland which was utter nonsense on India's part to even tolerate even till 1961.... the land belonged to gomantak tribe of Hindus and by which authority Portugal was ruling Goa??? There were no signs of Portuguese handing it over to India and they continued to torture the locals... Finally in December 1961 India launched operation Vijay in which Indian forces attacked Goa with troops, air force and navy and Goa finally was merged to Indian union.....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa

About your question of how much local support was involved in such mergers and how much actual push was given by expansionist minds in Indian govt is debatable.... people who are against these mergers will come with their valid points and people in favor (including me) will counter that with our theories.... endless debate friend...

@Joeshearer if you can further shed some light on this it would be a great help...

I'm writing from memory (of the various articles I have read on this subject over time).
An extremely small portion of what's is current day India was captured by force.
In Goa, daman and Diu, the fight was against the imperial forces, and there was no significant local opposition.
In hyderabad, there was significant opposition from local Muslims. But Hyderabad is a small place. The resistance was quickly overwhelmed.
There was a lot of fighting between the Hindus and Muslims during those times, and it is hard to place the blame on one side.
Most of our annexations were fairly logical, since we captured areas which had geographical continuity with our main landmass.
We don't see significant separatist movements outside of Kashmir anymore. If a large community wants to govern themselves, they try to divide the state into two. For Eg- Andhra pradesh and Telangana. The idea of separation from the nation is not popular here.

Thank you for the answers.

However there is a few things here that I can't get my head around.

Pre-1947 India (as in the modern-day Republic of India) was composed of literally 100's (if not 1000's) of independent states each with their own rulers. When the British were calling the shots, those rulers were all loyal subjects who retained their thrones as long as they did not cause any trouble for the British administration.

Now how does all this transform into what later became India in 1947? I mean which authorities did all the work to abolish all those independent states and put them under the same banner (uniting them?)

In one of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse places on the planet. Was it all due to the ground work laid before by the likes of Gandhi and Sardar Patel (never knew about this person)?

From the outside it looks like an almost impossible job/some type of miracle.

What would you say was the defining feature of "Indian unity" pre-1947? The common dominator aside from living on the same Indian subcontinent? Hinduism I guess and an opposition to British rule/presence?

Help me out here.

 

[vishwambhar]

Thank you for the answers.

However there is a few things here that I can't get my head around.

Pre-1947 India (as in the modern-day Republic of India) was composed of literally 100's (if not 1000's) of independent states each with their own rulers. When the British were calling the shots, those rulers were all loyal subjects who retained their thrones as long as they did not cause any trouble for the British administration.

Now how does all this transform into what later became India in 1947? I mean which authorities did all the work to abolish all those independent states and put them under the same banner (uniting them?)

In one of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse places on the planet. Was it all due to the ground work laid before by the likes of Gandhi and Sardar Patel (never knew about this person)?

From the outside it looks like an almost impossible job/some type of miracle.

What would you say was the defining feature of "Indian unity" pre-1947? The common dominator aside from living on the same Indian subcontinent? Hinduism I guess and an opposition to British rule/presence?

Help me out here.

Yes actually I too used to wonder how all those states became one India... there were 565 princely states after independence of India and Pakistan.... but there were only few states who were enough big and powerful with a potential of becoming proper countries.... eg. Kashmir, Junagadh, Mysore, Travankor and Hyderabad in south India.... other states were weak, enclave type states within India or Pakistan who anyway would have been always on the mercy of India or Pakistan.... they were more like zameendari estates (land ownerships) than a countries... so most of them willingly joined India and Pakistan and in return we gave them their special title of king with royal treatments always.... these royal families were paid handsomely by government.... so except Junagadh, Hyderabad, Kashmir, Goa almost all states we got without firing even a single bullet and that too within a span of 10 years....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_state

By 1961 after merger of Goa India today which you see in map was almost formed.... in 1975 Sikkim which was separate country till 1975 was merged in India....

In 1986 Arunachal Pradesh which was again a separate territory (only territory not country) between India and China was taken over by Indian army.... this incident had threateningly brought India and China on the brink of war but fortunately nothing happened and today Arunachal is part of Indian union.... so this is how today's India got completed in 1986....

Btw friend you are from which Arab country? Saudi Arabia?

 

[Yankee-stani]

Arabs and Turks (people) are not enemies and share a lot of common history, culture, ancestry (DNA), geography, religion etc. There are ancient Arab communities in Anatolia and Anatolia and its people have always had close historical, people to people ties to people of the Arab world (Arab Near East) which explains why the oldest Turkish cities are found near the border to Syria and Iraq. Turkish Arabs are one of the largest minorities in Turkey if not the largest after the Kurds. There are also Anatolian/Turkish minorities in the Arab world since a very long time (since 1000 + years ago already) from Yemen to Algeria, now intermarried. Turkmens in Iraq and Syria are basically a fusion between Arabs and Turks.

There would be no hostility among Erdogan ruled Turkey and Arab governments/regimes if not for Erdogan's MB agenda if you ask me. Just like there were no problems prior to Erdogan. Turkey might have had problems with Hafiz ruled Syria (based on the whole Hatay/Iskenderun controversy) but that was about it. However we can't deny, something that is also seen by some Turkish users on PDF, that there are elements in the Turkish elite that want to play the Neo-Ottoman card in the Arab world and that will obviously create hostility. Anyway we had this discussion in the Libya Civil War thread.

Honestly, I see no reason why Arabs and Turkey should be enemies. That is not the case even today despite some political disagreements. I am talking about people to people - minus the extremists/ultra-nationalists on both sides. Arabs are way low on the "Turkish list of historical enemies" similar to Turks being way low on the "Arab list of historical enemies" even within the region and vice versa.

My two cents, in a thread, where off-topic posts were doomed to occur eventually although I enjoyed my discussion with @OsmanAli98
Arabs and Turks should not be held hostage to a bunch of posturing by their leaders who at the end of day will go get foreign arms deal to fight each other and back to square one I think the lessons of the Cold War tho painful for the Arab World and Muslim world has not been felt so much in the elite and upper class circles while the masses have to suffer from this d..ck measuring contests

I am curious do you think that the average Pakistani knows the historical, ethnic, cultural, geographic etc. difference between Turkey/Anatolia and Turkic nations in Central Asia next to Pakistan? Often I get the impression that many Pakistani users here think that Turkey = Central Asia. I don't want to offend any Turkish user here unnecessary (the whole DNA and Turkification stuff - I know identity has little to do with DNA/origin nowadays) but I often see posts where somehow Mughals, Mongols, Timur etc. is somehow tied to modern-day Turkey and Turkish people when they have nothing to do with each other.



My "single federal Arab state" comment in the beginning of my post should be a giveaway as well as me asking to rename the thread title to what I suggested it should be renamed to.

Otherwise you are obviously right.

However if the Arabian Peninsula (the definition of that is not unanimous either, historically/geographically it includes most of Jordan, most of Iraq, Sinai and Southern and Eastern Syria and if geologically you can include the entire Arabian Plate which would include large parts of Turkey and Iran even but that is just an example for the sake of it) was united into a single state, whether federal or not, it would be a formidable state on its own. The current definition of the Peninsula is mostly a political one. Have that in mind in the future.

Anyway a lot of historical events are based on timing. The conditions that enabled India to unite in 1947, where not present in the Arab world at that time. For instance do you believe (I am curious to hear your reply) it would be possible to unite modern-day India into a federal state if the pre-1947 borders of India (with the pre-1947 rulers in place) had existed today (2020)? My personal take is that it would be many times more difficult than an attempt to unite the 20 + Arab countries of today given the much greater racial, ethnic, religious etc. diversity in India/South Asia and the many times more states present in pre-1947 India.

So as an Indian I would just recommend you Indians (Russians, Americans, Chinese etc.) to cherish the current status quo albeit it might not be perfect. The alternative would have been far worse if the goal was/is to be a potentially world player and if the goal is/was unity. My two quick cents.

Similarly advice for all Pakistanis, do not allow yourself to be divided into ethnic groups, clans, tribes etc.

Thank you for your post and answer. I would appreciate if you could somehow elaborate on all those historical events as I find it interesting. Similarly with the Pakistani angle of course.

Kurds are a separate ethnic group although Kurds have been heavily influenced by Arabs (neighbors after all) and intermarriages have been taking place for many centuries as well as genetic closeness (I am talking about Kurds in Syria and Iraq - the two Arab countries were Kurds live). Relations have been cordial, good, complicate and bad at times depending on the time period. Mostly bad in recent years (Saddam, Syrian civil war).

No, I was referring to the Arabian Plate (tectonic place)

which some geologists use as regional definitions but I mentioned it for the fun of it and to show you that the modern day definition of the Arabian Peninsula is a political one not a historical/geographical/cultural/ethnic/tribal/clan etc. one. and that there are many definitions of the Arabian Peninsula as such.

Lastly, apropos the unification of modern-day India and the abolishment of all those kingdoms and princely states (I know mostly about the Nawab of Hyderabad - his family apparently claimed Arab ancestry and he used to employ Yemeni soldiers - apparently there is an Yemeni community in Hyderabad to this day), can we not say that this unification in many ways occurred through force and that few locals/people were consulted?

Was it the move of the founding fathers of India purely or did a push for one India (I mean the borders were fought over violently - many people have read about the unfortunate events that occurred and population transfers between Pakistan and India) have a massive local following?

Could we also consider this as some sort of uprising against the feudal/ruling elite by the masses? What role did Indian Muslims play in this? I am quite frankly not fully versed on the inner details of this but it could serve as an inspiration in the Arab context as I find it perplexing that one of the most diverse regions in the world (India) in terms of ethnic groups, languages, cultures, religions, clans, tribes etc. is somehow 1 single country and that occurring only in 1947. From my historical knowledge of the history of what is today India, much of the territory was always divided into many principalities and kingdoms and very rarely united completely if ever (as in today). Just a quick elaboration if you don't mind.

I remember there was an Indian historian on PDF once. @Joe Shearer if I recall. Maybe he can contribute here if he sees my post and bothers to read it.

@prashantazazel or any other Indian user around of potential help

I think there is confusion between Turkic and Turkish Anatolian and mix in confusion of identity of whats "to be Pakistani" or not leads to this type of nostalgia of the Ottomans which prior to the 2010s and the 2000s was mainly harping on being Arabs again I blame the Government for not placing a emphasis on local identities and what not

 

[Ansu fati]

@ArabianEmpires&Caliphates I appreciate our conversation but i have to correct you regarding Turkey-Arab states relations
First of all you should know that politics is very dirty game with lots of twists and by saying this we can conclude the same thing about politicians I usually try to choose the lesser evil of politicians but you know an evil no matter the size is stil a bad thing but there’s no third choice and this is going to stay for ever I don’t expect that an honest guy with great moral values will be allowed to become head of any state let alone a G20 state so I will here write strictly from geopolitical view how things happened from my perspective
As you know assad family which got into power by a coup in syria(backed by soviets) was an enemy against Turkey(US-backed during cold war) they had some clear hate for turks(I suspect because of fake history narrative when turks supposedly mistreated alawites) but the worst thing is that they had territorial claims against Turkey and supported a separatist group who did countless number of terror attacks against innocent civilians(i am excluding military sites and troops although they also have family but since they are soldiers whose duty is to protect the country i will talk only about civilian looses-40K) after the end of cold war when soviet union disintegrated itself assad was put into bad position because his main backer was gone he was exposed to possible war against superior opponent not to mention also the gulf war because he knew that Syria would be attacked jointly by turkish and american land&air forces so assad made a deal with turks it’s called adana agreement the deal is controversial since it was never published and now 20 years later when russia claimed that Turkey was allowed only 5km inside Syria TAF and TR government disputed the claim but let’s go back to 2000s to clarify more things
90s were extremely bad years for Turkey who had at that time 90% military dependence on US as you know we had war between azerbejain and armenia then bosnian&kosovo genocide almost war with greece over some islands potential conflict with assad’s syria and the fight against pkk
All of that happened at once so the turkish state had huge finansial crisis then a new party led by erdogan came to power at first his main target was economy and liberalism and after he turned the economic situation successfully the time was now for foreign policy
There were two options for him either stay under the radar with very quiet moves or have more direct role in the region and later in the world
He chose first option and it lasted until then famous 2008/2009 spat with israeli president perez
During this period Turkey and Syria had a good start for relations even erdogan was the intermediate between Syria and Israel for peaceful talks but these negotiations failed and after the davos forum “event” we can see gradual change from first option to the second one(active foreign policy)
Actually i think that this davos hot event was very warmly recieved from muslims around the world especially arabs and this was a catalyst for reorientation of turkish foreign policy(of course turkish series had important role too)
From 2010-13 Turkey literally did money laundering for Iran because US(obama administration) asked for this erdogan thought he will be awarded for this only to find several years later that he was used and backstabbed by americans in the worst possible way(regime change they tried twice first in 2013 and in 2016)
As you know arab spring happened(though some would say it still on) during this period we see that from early 2000s until 2012 relations between arab states( especially these 3-UAE KSA QATAR) and erdogan were excellent but when morsi came to power he started aggressively attacking other arab states especially monarchies and this was his biggest strategic mistake KSA UAE and other kingdoms saw this as an attempt to do regime change and from 2013 with the coup in Egypt(sisi) we enter gradually into bad relations between most wealthy&powerful arab states(KSA UAE and Egypt) and Turkey
We have already talked about Syria but i will try to summarize once again At first during early years turkish political establishment had pipe dream that they can remove assad and put pro-turkisn government in damascus but later as we had the opportunity to see there was actually serious internal crisis in Turkey(the fight between the elected government and feto organization) unfortunately because of these crisis Turkey intervened too late in 2016 but i guess better late than never right?!?!
From 2016 there’s a switch in policy thinking among turkish security apparatus&goverment they started doing realpolitik which should’ve done from the beginning
Since 2016 Turkey started (fake) temporary engagement with Russia and Iran to secure itself from terrorism&separatism
Of course Turkey is still anti assad but he’s not anymore first priority(basically that means if russians and iranians can keep him alive Turkey wouldn’t spare efforts to counter them) there’s certainly more to tell about syria but that’s off topic and would cover whole page for detailed explanation
From 2016-present all turkish foreign moves are made based on realpolitik for national interests
You might say backing Qatar in 2017 was because of ideological reasons i will say that this was done because Qatar backed Turkey during the coup plus they have invested heavily in the turkish economy now(since 2016) when we have clear two blocks Turkey&Qatar versus KSA&UAE&Egypt betraying Qatar is out of question because the other block backs all turkish enemies(pkk feto greece even tiny greek cyrpus haftar in libya) and it is delusional to think that if Turkey joins KSA&UAE everything would be like it used to be pre-2013
I agree with you that turks and arabs shouldn’t be enemies but there are efforts by foreigners as well as by domestic actors in ME to provoke hate
Take the khassogi case for example
MBS wanted to get rid of thim and then put the blame it on turkish authorities
By doing this he could’ve done pretty big damage on turkish economy(ruining the tourism sector which has just started recovering in 2018) but MIT(turkish national intelligence) outsmarted him and used khasoggi killing to destroy his PR image in the world
Now we have active state-sponsored anti turkish propaganda in saudi education system which can have long term consequences for relationship between ordinary arabs and turks
As i said before all moves after the coup are only for achieving national interests when someone replaces erdogan the policy will be same but you won’t hear dramatic ummah speeches that would be the only notable difference
In short erdogan(Turkey) meddles in arab affairs and it’s natural to expect from an arab to say that erdogan is quilty for the current situation(i agree partially with this) but we have to mention what KSA UAE and Egypt are doing against Turkey and with this being said for a tango you need two dancers in other news there are culprits on both sides for the bad relations

 

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

@Ansu fati

The Khashoggi incident is one of the most strange incidents that I can think of. Firstly KSA has no history of killing critics abroad (there are literally 100's of prominent Saudi Arabian critics based in the West, Arab world and elsewhere - vast majority of them much more vocal than an "insider" like Khashoggi ever was whose biggest crime was to criticize some recent state policies - mainly as an old-MB sympathizer KSA's handling of MB/political Islamists - he always remained loyal to the end) so that whole accusation of trying to pin it on Turkey makes no sense. Nor killing Khashoggi. I firmly belief that some roque elements where behind this. Anything else makes no sense. The timing and everything. Khashoggi had been based in the US while writing for the Washington Post for well over 1 year when this occurred. His criticism became more and more famous. Al-Jazeera and other pro-MB media were broadcasting his views constantly. In case of a killing/abduction there would only ever be 1 suspect and that would be KSA.

So there are only two options. Either it was a botched operation or Khashoggi started working for foreign countries and being a traitor by telling foreign intelligences of whatever he knew (after all he was close to the old King Abdullah administration and had correspondence with powerful princes in KSA even when in exile in the US) or he was trying to attempt to overthrow MbS/King Salman alongside opposition groups in KSA.

So the angle of trying to "blame Turkey" is ridiculous. In fact Turkey (Erdogan) used this incident to do everything they could to malling KSA which is quite ironical (historically speaking) given how Turkey deals with traitors/regime critics/hostile journalists.

Which state-sponsored "anti-Turkey" education? Not aware of such a thing.

The problem really originates in Erdogan betting on the failed MB horse (everywhere in the Arab world not named tiny Qatar) and playing alongside Qatar (long a bastion of MB in the Arab world - hosting Al-Qaradawi since ages - Al-Jazeera their main media weapon) in hope of gaining influence in the Arab world this way.

This strategy has failed and it will fail in the future too therefore it makes no sense for Turkey (cold calculated foreign policy) to stick with tiny Qatar while alienating all the most powerful Arab states in the region. On the long run this is a losing game.

BTW most Turkish users that I have engaged with on PDF on this matter have agreed with me. They might be a minority, I don't know, but I know how politics works. Not many weeks/months ago Turkey and Russia (alongside Iran) were best buddies (could be seen reflected here on PDF) and when thinks started to heat up in Syria, Turkey called for NATO (USA) that until not long ago had been criticized in the Turkish media constantly. Turkish users on PDF also changed their tunes. This is all normal and not exclusive to Turks, I am sure that if KSA/GCC/Arabs and Iran made up, we would see from both parties novels written about how much we share in common historically etc. and how we should have been working together from the beginning. You know the drill.

KSA/Egypt/UAE/Arab countries are not going to prevent Turkey from investing in the Arab world. Nor is Turkey going to conquer anything in the Arab world. The only non-regional entity in the world that can truly make drastic changes in the Arab world through military means is the US but even then we saw how they failed in Iraq and their inaction in Syria. Doubt that the Americans are interested in more foreign wars in the Muslim world.

I am not sure if I will be on PDF when this happens (or even alive, you too for that matter) by the time Erdogan will no longer rule Turkey, but I am quite sure that pre-2012 relations will emerge again. And even if they don't they will be like those during the Kemalist era which were mostly neutral and problem free outside of the Syrian example that I wrote about and you elaborate on in detail. That is my take on it at least.

Anyway let us return to the topic of this thread.

A quick on top of my head calculation of the giant possibilities that a single federal Arab state (once again) would result in as of today:

1) Second largest landmass in the world after Russia

2) Third largest population in the world after China and India

3) Largest (by far) hydrocarbon wealth and mineral wealth in the world

4) Longest coastline in the world and control of some of the most strategic waters in the world

5) Fourth largest economy in the world with amble potential for growth

6) One of the fastest growing and youngest populations in the world

7) Largest sovereign wealth funds with some the biggest investment portfolios in the world

8) Second largest standing active army in the world after China

Despite being much more ethnically and culturally diverse (not to mention climatic differences) the likes of India, Russia, China and USA are living examples of the necessity of the adoption of large nation states. India prior to 1947 was divided into 1000 different entities. Russia is the result of Russian conquest of non-Russians. 90% of the Russian territory was originally non-Russian. Similarly in China (Tibet, Xinjiang). The US is the biggest melting pot divided into over 50 states. All somehow manage to survive so the prospect of 1 single federal Arab state is objectively speaking (at least solely looking at history geography, culture, ethnic harmony, language etc.) should very much be possible eventually once again

We need Arab leaders who openly pursue such policies and openly work towards regional Arab cooperation and integration. More visionaries. Few such leaders occurred in the past 100 years. Can only think of Ibn Saud who managed to unite a large Arab territory into a single state that otherwise would have been further fragmented.
Insha'Allah this will change in the future and Arabs should all work towards that goal actively in whatever means that we have. Starting with regional Arab cooperation.

In many ways it could not be any different after 400 years of darkness (Ottoman period) in half of the Arab world and after/before that Western meddling. In some cases like Algeria this lasted almost 150 years. In the past few decades we have been trying to find our feet again despite largely useless leadership (by large), foreign meddling/invasions of superpowers and divisions as a consequence of all this. Even to this day we have 4 main unrest hotspots in the Arab world (Yemen, Libya, Syria and Iraq to a degree due to political instability). All those problems and challenges can only be solved jointly and it is time for people to wake up to this reality and stop waving their small little flags. Nation states and borders have been changing since the first human appeared on the planet. It will be no different in the future. Better join hands and create a strong entity rather than the current status quo.

@Slav Defence

Permission to change the thread title to "The unification of the Arabian Peninsula/Arab world?"

Thank you.

The more I read about our history and that of the world the more was6a (nepotism) appears. It is particularly harmful in the Arab world. Removing it/minimizing it might be our biggest challenge.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Thank you for your post and answer. I would appreciate if you could somehow elaborate on all those historical events as I find it interesting. Similarly with the Pakistani angle of course.

Kurds are a separate ethnic group although Kurds have been heavily influenced by Arabs (neighbors after all) and intermarriages have been taking place for many centuries as well as genetic closeness (I am talking about Kurds in Syria and Iraq - the two Arab countries were Kurds live). Relations have been cordial, good, complicate and bad at times depending on the time period. Mostly bad in recent years (Saddam, Syrian civil war).

No, I was referring to the Arabian Plate (tectonic place)

which some geologists use as regional definitions but I mentioned it for the fun of it and to show you that the modern day definition of the Arabian Peninsula is a political one not a historical/geographical/cultural/ethnic/tribal/clan etc. one. and that there are many definitions of the Arabian Peninsula as such.

Lastly, apropos the unification of modern-day India and the abolishment of all those kingdoms and princely states (I know mostly about the Nawab of Hyderabad - his family apparently claimed Arab ancestry and he used to employ Yemeni soldiers - apparently there is an Yemeni community in Hyderabad to this day), can we not say that this unification in many ways occurred through force and that few locals/people were consulted?

Was it the move of the founding fathers of India purely or did a push for one India (I mean the borders were fought over violently - many people have read about the unfortunate events that occurred and population transfers between Pakistan and India) have a massive local following?

Could we also consider this as some sort of uprising against the feudal/ruling elite by the masses? What role did Indian Muslims play in this? I am quite frankly not fully versed on the inner details of this but it could serve as an inspiration in the Arab context as I find it perplexing that one of the most diverse regions in the world (India) in terms of ethnic groups, languages, cultures, religions, clans, tribes etc. is somehow 1 single country and that occurring only in 1947. From my historical knowledge of the history of what is today India, much of the territory was always divided into many principalities and kingdoms and very rarely united completely if ever (as in today). Just a quick elaboration if you don't mind.

I remember there was an Indian historian on PDF once. @Joe Shearer if I recall. Maybe he can contribute here if he sees my post and bothers to read it.

@prashantazazel or any other Indian user around of potential help

My friend.... it would have been next to impossible to establish today's Indian union in 2020 if pre 1947 borders and leaders of those princely states were existing today. India would not have been as large country as its today... we were lucky that situation in 1947 made many such states to join Indian union willingly but thanks to our national hero Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who took a strong stance against some states such as Junagadh, Hyderabad.....

Goa (my native state) we had to militarily liberate from Portugal occupation.... Kashmir whole world knows.... but if Indian leadership of that time had failed to show courage what it could show that time under Vallabhbhai Patel then in today's modern world India map would have been totally different....

Btw you said that Arab peninsula consists of some parts of Turkey and Iran.... are you talking about Kurdish territory in these countries? Can Kurds be considered as arabs?

Thank you for your post and answer. I would appreciate if you could somehow elaborate on all those historical events as I find it interesting. Similarly with the Pakistani angle of course.

Kurds are a separate ethnic group although Kurds have been heavily influenced by Arabs (neighbors after all) and intermarriages have been taking place for many centuries as well as genetic closeness (I am talking about Kurds in Syria and Iraq - the two Arab countries were Kurds live). Relations have been cordial, good, complicate and bad at times depending on the time period. Mostly bad in recent years (Saddam, Syrian civil war).

No, I was referring to the Arabian Plate (tectonic place)

which some geologists use as regional definitions but I mentioned it for the fun of it and to show you that the modern day definition of the Arabian Peninsula is a political one not a historical/geographical/cultural/ethnic/tribal/clan etc. one. and that there are many definitions of the Arabian Peninsula as such.

Lastly, apropos the unification of modern-day India and the abolishment of all those kingdoms and princely states (I know mostly about the Nawab of Hyderabad - his family apparently claimed Arab ancestry and he used to employ Yemeni soldiers - apparently there is an Yemeni community in Hyderabad to this day), can we not say that this unification in many ways occurred through force and that few locals/people were consulted?

Was it the move of the founding fathers of India purely or did a push for one India (I mean the borders were fought over violently - many people have read about the unfortunate events that occurred and population transfers between Pakistan and India) have a massive local following?

Could we also consider this as some sort of uprising against the feudal/ruling elite by the masses? What role did Indian Muslims play in this? I am quite frankly not fully versed on the inner details of this but it could serve as an inspiration in the Arab context as I find it perplexing that one of the most diverse regions in the world (India) in terms of ethnic groups, languages, cultures, religions, clans, tribes etc. is somehow 1 single country and that occurring only in 1947. From my historical knowledge of the history of what is today India, much of the territory was always divided into many principalities and kingdoms and very rarely united completely if ever (as in today). Just a quick elaboration if you don't mind.

I remember there was an Indian historian on PDF once. @Joe Shearer if I recall. Maybe he can contribute here if he sees my post and bothers to read it.

@prashantazazel or any other Indian user around of potential help

There is a bit of background to this union of the Indian princely states with the Dominion of India in 1947 (these numbered 551, and another 17 joined the Dominion of Pakistan). Long story short: as early as the 1930s, the Indian (Indian and Pakistani; there were no distinctions those days, it was one entity, a Crown Colony and those nearly 570 princely states) princes had agreed to merge their states with the British-ruled portion of India. This was not a decision by belligerent Indian ministers in 1947; it was a realisation of a decision taken nearly two decades earlier. Even the document that was used to signify the 'accession' of the states to the existing democratically-ruled parts of India was an annexure to that earlier set of resolutions and papers.

What follows is optional reading, information does not directly bear on the question of the nature of the absorption of the states into the Dominion of India. Skip it if you wish; you will be none the worse for it.

The conversion of the Crown Colony of India, ruled by a Governor-General re-designated Viceroy to denote the direct rule of the Crown, in place of the earlier ownership of large tracts of India by a joint stock company, the HEIC (Honourable East India Company), to the Dominions of India, and those tracts separated from it as the Dominion of Pakistan, did not happen overnight.

There was, as early as 1857, a bloody mutiny against the British ruling organisation (at that time, the East India Company), which saw the most appalling brutality and slaughter of innocents by both sides in the conflict. The mutineer soldiers were soon joined by dis-satisfied feudal elements who had grievances against the previous decisions of the administration. One Governor-General, for instance, stopped East India Company recognition of the Indian personal law usage allowing a son-less ruler to adopt a son; the death of the last recognised incumbent meant that the Company took over the territory. The most noted example of this kind of rebellion was the case of the principality of Jhansi, a not very large princely state that was placed under a Company administration on the death of the last recognised ruler; his widow, step-mother of his adopted son, the ruler according to prevailing personal law, took to arms and fought a gallant series of actions against overwhelming forces of the Company tasked to quell the mutiny.

Following this, there was a transformation in the way the British, now the Crown, with the assumption of direct reign by the Crown, the Kings of England, now titled the Emperor of India, looked at Indians. The Company had conquered the whole of what constituted its holdings in India on the strength of 'Madrasi' (largely Tamil and Deccani Muslims), Bombay-based (Mahars, Marathas, and western India Muslims) and 'Bengali' (largely Bihari and Awadhi Hindus, and Muslim elements who formed most of the cavalry) Indian troops. The number of British soldiers was a small portion of the entire military force. This composite force defeated the Nawab of the Carnatic, the Nizam of Hyderabad, the Sultan of Mysore, the Maratha Confederacy, including the Peshwa, the Maharajas of Gwalior, and Indore, and Nagpur and Baroda the Rajputs, the land-owners of Sindh, the Rohillas, the Nawab, later, the King of Oudh, the Mughal Emperor's very weak forces, and finally, the Sikh Empire. They failed, more or less, in extending their rule to Afghanistan; in a series of wars, they learnt a costly lesson: leave Afghanistan alone.

After 1857, the British suddenly discovered that their former soldiers were not truly the warriors that represented India, and that the real soldiers should be drawn from the 'martial races'. This started the policy of favouring these martial races in their military recruitment, a decision that had its own dire effect on the future of the sub-continent.

Coming to the questions raised, here are my personal observations, for what they are worth.

1. Your question:
Lastly, apropos the unification of modern-day India and the abolishment of all those kingdoms and princely states (I know mostly about the Nawab of Hyderabad - his family apparently claimed Arab ancestry and he used to employ Yemeni soldiers - apparently there is an Yemeni community in Hyderabad to this day), can we not say that this unification in many ways occurred through force and that few locals/people were consulted?

Answer: No, not so. This was a decision that was clearly popular with the residents of these states, and the understanding was that the princes would hand over communications, defence and foreign relations to the Dominion, and continue to rule with various degrees of autonomy. The princes agreed to this during the First Round Table Conference in London, in the 1930s. It was not through force; it was an implementation of a decision already taken. With variations, this held true of Hyderabad, Junagadh and Kashmir as well.

2: Your question:
Was it the move of the founding fathers of India purely or did a push for one India (I mean the borders were fought over violently - many people have read about the unfortunate events that occurred and population transfers between Pakistan and India) have a massive local following?

Answer: The Indian leaders led - that was one point to be kept firmly in mind. It was not a spontaneous movement initially; the idea was put into the minds of the citizens of the princely states, and they adopted those initiatives eagerly. There is no doubt that Gandhi's revolution of the 1920s, where he converted a genteel, upper-middle class movement based on petitions and representations to the British administration for better conditions of political and professional life for native Indians into a powerful, almost unstoppable mass movement, reaching right into the core of Indian society, not just the elite, British-educated urban dwellers, but the rural people as well.

This revolution happened within the borders of the British-administered territory, but was reflected - and quelled - within the borders of the princely states as well. There were wide variations in the type and magnitude of the popular movements in the Indian states, but very broadly speaking, people wanted freedom and democracy.

3: Your question:
Could we also consider this as some sort of uprising against the feudal/ruling elite by the masses? What role did Indian Muslims play in this? I am quite frankly not fully versed on the inner details of this but it could serve as an inspiration in the Arab context as I find it perplexing that one of the most diverse regions in the world (India) in terms of ethnic groups, languages, cultures, religions, clans, tribes etc. is somehow 1 single country and that occurring only in 1947. From my historical knowledge of the history of what is today India, much of the territory was always divided into many principalities and kingdoms and very rarely united completely if ever (as in today). Just a quick elaboration if you don't mind.

Answer: These are three questions rolled into one. At this stage, I have to beg your indulgence to answer later; the present state of my health leads to my tiring very easily, and I can continue only with difficulty.

I will also take up the very interesting observations by other members at that time, if you please.

 

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

Arab Integration: A 21st Century Development Imperative

Download PDF

Symbol:
E/ESCWA/OES/2013/3
Issued in:
2014

Around the world, even the greatest powers have opted to be part of larger regional entities in order to manage globalization and the competition it brings. Meanwhile, Arab countries which share a common historical, cultural and spiritual heritage and are bound by one language remain fragmented and divided and try to face individually external pressures, domestic challenges and emerging risks, in a world growing more interconnected and complex each day.

This report calls for a comprehensive integration, which rests on three pillars: stronger political cooperation for good governance and effective external diplomacy; deeper economic integration to reap benefits for all Arab countries; and more extensive educational and cultural reform to root out lodged constraints and enable Arab knowledge societies to thrive. The report argues that nothing less will answer the awakened call of the Arab people for justice, opportunities and freedom as heard during the recent wave of popular protests across the region. It demonstrates that comprehensive integration, properly managed, can benefit all the Arab countries without creating winners and losers. It emphasizes, moreover, that an integrated Arab region will not close itself to the world but seek to consolidate relations with other regional groups and bring together the best achievements of its own history with those of other civilizations.

Download the Press Kit: English | Arabic | French

Download the Summary: English | Arabic | French

Keywords:
ARAB COUNTRIES
CIVIL SOCIETY
CULTURAL COOPERATION
ECONOMIC COOPERATION
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMIC INTEGRATION
HUMAN RIGHTS
NATIONALITY
PALESTINE QUESTION
POPULAR PARTICIPATION
PROGRAMMES OF ACTION
PROTEST MOVEMENTS
REVOLUTIONS
STATISTICAL DATA
TRADE LIBERALIZATION
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
Theme:
Economic Development and Integration
Regional & Country Programmes
Governance and Conflict Issues
Governance
Conflict Mitigation & Resilience
Palestine and Israeli Occupation
Civic Engagement and Participatory Development
Social Justice
Publication Type:
Reports and Studies

https://www.unescwa.org/publications/arab-integration-21st-century-development-imperative

Worth a read. Excellent stuff.