Turkey 'fully supports' Pakistan’s position on Kashmir: Turkish FM

[Kaniska]

I mean it is nothing surprising at all...Being a Islamic nation, ususally they allign with Pakistan and its interest.
Now does it impact anything on the ground???...I really doubt it.

It is a fact that most of the Islamic nation support Pakistan and its position in Kashmir unless and otherwise, they have any interest or benifit from India...So i am not surprised with this position of Turkey. It is good for them.

Turkey 'fully supports' Pakistan’s position on Kashmir: Turkish FM
By Reuters
Published: August 3, 2016

PHOTO: AFP

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, who is on a one-day visit to Pakistan, on Tuesday said Turkey has always supported Pakistan’s position on Jammu and Kashmir, and will continue to do so until the long-festering issue is resolved.

In reply to a question during a joint news conference with Pakistan’s Foreign Policy Chief Sartaj Aziz, Cavusoglu categorically declared that his country would continue to support people of Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistani position on the Kashmir dispute.

“With regards to the Jammu and Kashmir question, Turkey has been supporting, fully supporting, Jammu Kashmir and Pakistan’s position. Turkey is active member of the contact group in OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation). Personally I have attended all the meetings on the occasion of the OIC,” he said.

Cavusoglu said he would be requesting the UN Secretary General to send a fact-finding mission to India-held Kashmir to look into reports of atrocities being committed there by Indian forces.

“Hopefully there will be another meeting in New York in September during the General Assembly. And I would like to ask Secretary General to mobilize the OIC Contact group and also to send a fact-finding mission to see the situation,” he said.

Cavusoglu stressed that the Jammu Kashmir dispute can only be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy and not through use of force.

“We believe that this issue, this dispute, can be solved only through dialogue and diplomacy, not violence or using force. And I’m sure Pakistan has the same position. Therefore we will continue contributing in this issue, and hopefully everybody will refrain from using violence instead of preferring or choosing the diplomacy and dialogue to overcome this issue,” he said.

Cavusoglu said Ankara and Islamabad have supported each other through thick and thin, and Turkish and Pakistani people know they can rely on each other during difficult times.

That is why Pakistan was the first country he was visiting following the coup attempt in Turkey, he said.

Aziz congratulated Turkey for its successful campaign to defeat the coup attempt on July 15 which he said was a “victory for democracy and liberty over dictatorship and autocracy.”

Both Pakistan and India control different parts of the disputed Kashmir valley, and both claim the region in full.

Kashmir has been on the boil after Indian security services on July 08 gunned down 22-year-old Burhan Wani, leader of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen- a group fighting India control of the Muslim-majority region.

Forty-six people have been killed and more than 5,000 wounded, including Indian security forces, since protests erupted in Indian Kashmir after the killing of Wani.

It is the worst outbreak of violence in six years in the disputed territory which has been at the centre of a tussle between New Delhi and Islamabad for decades.

India has posted thousands of troops in India-controlled Kashmir as part of a decades-old confrontation with Pakistan.

The nuclear-armed rivals have fought two of their three wars over the control of Kashmir since 1947, when the British left the sub-continent.

Nearly 100,000 people, mostly civilians, have been killed and thousands have disappeared during the armed revolt and subsequent military operations since 1989.

India says the separatist revolt is financed and aided by Pakistan. Pakistan denies the accusation, saying it only gives moral and diplomatic support to the Kashmiri people facing rights abuses at the hands of the Indian army.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/1155127/turkey-fully-supports-pakistans-position-kashmir-turkish-fm/

 

[Areesh]

Those who have doubts about his/her own character will also see same doubts in other's character .
Perhaps a psychatrist can help you.

I have no doubts about. I have firm belief that you are a joker.

Tamilnadu population is 77.88 million and turkey is at 74.93 ,it can't even match Tamilnadu in population,let alone India.This is getting to be a funny thread.
When somebody tweeted about this , the replys were mostly what or who turkey is..nobody other than the Indian PDFers even care in India.But let's not divert the topic.

What can turkey do to stop India????

Not Turkey's problem if you multiply like rabbits.

Turkey is supporting Pakistan. Question is what supa puwa India going to do about it.

Comes from someone who pretty much spends most of his time on PDF!....get a life (nearly 20K posts)..Elite Areesh!

Yeah because it is a Pakistani forum and I am a Pakistani. Why are you here?? Obsessed with Pakistan much??

 

[SQ8]

You say MA Jinnah wanted a Muslim majority region but for that he used concept that Hindu-Muslims are distinct which point towards that Hindu-Muslims can't coexist with two scenarios

1 He claimed Muslim minority can't live with Hindu majority but Muslim majority can live with Hindu minority (as you say), which indirectly implies Hindu majority can't live with Muslim minority but Hindu minority can live with Muslim majority, which is completly opposite of what he advocated, and also what we see today. Hence proving your point wrong.

2 He claimed Muslim-Hindus can't live togethor irrespective of majority or minority (while those against his ideology claiming it false), which means he believed Muslim minority in Hindu majority and Hindu minority in Muslim majority should carve out, technically making Pakistan a Muslim only state, proving your point wrong again.


True. This does not mean that he didn't wanted Pakistan to be Muslim majority state, its just that his actions were against his belief. And that certainly does not stop Pakistan from becoming a secular state today, whats done in history is done.


Right.

1. That is your view of your point based on what is being taught and reported in India; nothing is proven wrong.
2. Makes absolutely no sense what you are trying to imply to try and prove what wrong?
3. That is politics since the beginning of time, and rest is irrelvant to the Kashmir cause.

More like sugarcoats.



Actually it was. Jinnah consider hindus and muslims as two different nations. How can two nations live together?

It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, -- Jinnah

Then he goes on to say how it will be destructive if hindu muslims have to live together in a nation

and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state. -- Jinnah

Now let me take your argument (which in fact is a testament to same hindu-muslim incompatibility or non-coexistence ) -

So Jinnah wanted muslims to live under laws by majority i.e. muslims in decision because he feels that is right but had no qualms in having hindus to live under laws by muslim majority in decision ?

How can he accept hindu state accession which goes against his own ideology of what is right and what is wrong? If muslims should not live under majority hindu, why not the same favour extended to hindus? Why to take a contradictory position when it comes to hindus? Hypocrisy or a ruler mentality? Till I am ruling I am fine, if I am ruled I am not?

@Joe Shearer Can you see the dichotomy here, it makes me cringe.

One can ponder upon why the pakistani constitution do not allow any non muslim to become the head of state even when the state being democratic with muslim majority "in toto". So the cause of Pakistan was not just an effort to live by muslim majority decision, it has serious religious connotations to it which do not see non muslims as equal and worthy of ruling even if he is a citizen of one own country and elected by majority. Iqbal had it very clear when he called watan parasti a curse on religion(Islam).

Oscar, mind it, Jinnah was not alone. He used the insecurities of masses to build a nation but then Pakistan fall for the same insecurities later on. Once Pakistan became reality he tried to make it something which was not promised to masses - a convoluted diluted form of secularism with Islam first. They make it only Islam once he perished. There was always a difference in what he want and what he used including the political slogans what you have mentioned.



What the correction here is?

Moreover once Indian Independence Act 47 was passed with basic territory defined for dominion of Pakistan and India, there was no need to gather support for the cause of Pakistan. Pakistan already became a reality. The only thing left was expansion of that territory by instrument of accession. Pakistan was not interested for Junagarh or Hyderabad for obvious reasons and thus did not carry forward resentment beyond a point.



” My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine for me is denial of God”. -- Mahatma Gandhi

And Indian constitution subsequently gave all the rights to a muslim what an average hindu can enjoy, in fact more as minority.



That I will leave on your wisdom to judge.

But if I have my own differences and do not agree to your line of thought, what does that make me - less witty?



Ahh exactly....more reasons for not taking his words before Partition as his true ideological values.

I completely agree here with you and applied the same context above to his actions.



And what will you say about those who think, if chosen, Kashmir should be allowed to go free? Essentially making them control the lifeline of two nuclear states? Will that not hit some very sensitive nerve of two regional powers?

But I do not agree to terrible battle part. I believe we will chose to exist with lessor resources than go extinct in an attempt to eat whole pie.

While you have brought in a good source, I believe you have misused it or misconstrued it at the least.
What does the religion of the Ruler and its principle have anything to do with the core requirement to get the land of Kashmir and the population based on the strategic requirement?

After all, my post already elucidates that he was essentially creating the resources and case for the future of the Muslim communities of India. The Dogra clan did not have Kashmir until Ranjit Singh gave it to them so they too were implants; yet neither of it matters and I fail to see where you find some kind of surprise when a position is taken that favours Pakistan? Why this Utopian standard for Pakistan alone?

To add to your spiral into this mistaken line of thinking, you are referencing the constitution which until 73 was never in its final form. How does that document have ANYTHING to do with Jinnah's actions to create Pakistan?

At the end, you have added what is to me a space filler quote by Gandhi which is irrelevant since his feelings do not reflect that of the communities themselves. The Indian constitution can state that no one is to ever drink wine and people still will, no society is perfect and the proof for the incompatibility of the communities to share the same economic and social space in anything except total majority or total minority is plain to see. No amount of appeasement will fix the condition of Muslims in India and the appeasement itself is an addition to resentment of Muslims by Hindus in India.

The problem is not that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together in large populations ;it is that they cannot live together with the historical baggage they all carried at that time and still do so today. It has NOTHING to do with pure religion, but is a result of socio economic factors that tend to show up when resources are scarce and competition is fierce.

Why is it that Rural India has MUCH less reports of Hindu Muslim conflict than Urban India?

 

[911]

1. That is your view of your point based on what is being taught and reported in India; nothing is proven wrong.
2. Makes absolutely no sense what you are trying to imply to try and prove what wrong?
3. That is politics since the beginning of time, and rest is irrelvant to the Kashmir cause.

Well my point was if he believed Muslims can't live under Hindu majority, then how could he believed that Hindu minority can live under new Muslim majority state? But nvm, and yes its not related to Kashmir.

 

[SQ8]

Well my point was if he believed Muslims can't live under Hindu majority, then how could he believed that Hindu minority can live under new Muslim majority state? But nvm, and yes its not related to Kashmir.

His belief was well placed when it comes to the leadership of communities, and that is only being shown true both in India and Pakistan.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Thank you Turkiye for supporting those who are righteous....it's a moral cause and we will continue to work closely with Kashmiris and to keep their tormentors in check. india's wanton disregard for human life and property in occupied Kashmir is hardly new nor out of character. Revenge for their mass murder of Kashmiris WILL be attained, Insha'Allah

And so can people from Manipur won't mind supporters for them.

Manipur, Khalistan, Mizoram, Assam, Bodoland, Hyderabad Deccan, Bihar......list is quite expansive actually

was replying to a troll..

I feel turkey should not interfere in the internal mater of India.we never interfere in the internal matter of Turkey.

Kashmir is not an "internal matter of india" so nothing for you to worry about then, dummy

Turkey also 'supports' the Palestinians and we've seen that 'support' reflected in their partnership with Israel

I'm sure this will please Pakistan and Pakistanis...but, in terms of making a tangible difference? It means NOTHING.

ground realities speak even louder in occupied Kashmir

Pakistan should ask Turkey to use its influence so all Central Asian countries support Pakistan in this conflict. As Central Asian countries have cultural and historical link with Turkey/Ottoman Empire.

Pakistan should lobby to get full support of all 57 OIC countries and China.

the real answer is eye for an eye......the water need to boil at right temperature and when it does, the occupation forces will shit their DHOTIS soon enough. Be patient

 

[ChennaiDude]

I have no doubts about. I have firm belief that you are a joker.



Not Turkey's problem if you multiply like rabbits.

Turkey is supporting Pakistan. Question is what supa puwa India going to do about it.



Yeah because it is a Pakistani forum and I am a Pakistani. Why are you here?? Obsessed with Pakistan much??

Yes I am!....You cant do shit...so shut it..(If you have the guts stop me)!

 

[Hephaestus]

And neither does you and your rants mean anything Nirma Krish.



Rest of the world considers Kashmir disputed.

How does that feel to you for your "integral part". "Integral part" is disputed as per same "rest of the world".

We are satisfied with that.

Don't matter sh*t. disputed or not. It's staying with us. Do what you can?

You know something East-Pakistan was not disputed though

 

[SmilingBuddha]

I have no doubts about. I have firm belief that you are a joker.



Not Turkey's problem if you multiply like rabbits.

Turkey is supporting Pakistan. Question is what supa puwa India going to do about it.



Yeah because it is a Pakistani forum and I am a Pakistani. Why are you here?? Obsessed with Pakistan much??

Well we will just point and laugh just like now.

How many Mughals conquered whole India ?

Nobody did.

 

[livingdead]

if your diplomats try a bit, they can get maldives on board too...

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

.

As per the Shimla agreement the Kashmir dispute is a bilateral issue, I don't understand why Pakistanis are so eager to drag others into this matter. Their seeming fixation on this issue is seriously hindering Pakistan's foreign policy and needlessly diluting its foreign policy..

how do you say that with a straight face when its YOUR govt that is tight lipped and embarrassed

 

[livingdead]

Then who will save Maldives Next time there is a coup

the coup will be by their army who are also citizen of maldives..did you mean who will save democracy in maldives?

 

[Stephen Cohen]

how do you say that with a straight face when its YOUR govt that is tight lipped and embarrassed

There is NO embarrasment at all ; that is your imagination

There are 200 countries in the WORLD

IN How many countries do you see DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST INDIA

 

[Shakuni & Ravan]

At the end of the day what turkey can do is only lip service which is still continuing for past 25 years.But our neighbour think that the lip service is new and got some mental satisfaction, but of no use in reality.

 

[Kaniska]

1. That is your view of your point based on what is being taught and reported in India; nothing is proven wrong.
2. Makes absolutely no sense what you are trying to imply to try and prove what wrong?
3. That is politics since the beginning of time, and rest is irrelvant to the Kashmir cause.


While you have brought in a good source, I believe you have misused it or misconstrued it at the least.
What does the religion of the Ruler and its principle have anything to do with the core requirement to get the land of Kashmir and the population based on the strategic requirement?

After all, my post already elucidates that he was essentially creating the resources and case for the future of the Muslim communities of India. The Dogra clan did not have Kashmir until Ranjit Singh gave it to them so they too were implants; yet neither of it matters and I fail to see where you find some kind of surprise when a position is taken that favours Pakistan? Why this Utopian standard for Pakistan alone?

To add to your spiral into this mistaken line of thinking, you are referencing the constitution which until 73 was never in its final form. How does that document have ANYTHING to do with Jinnah's actions to create Pakistan?

At the end, you have added what is to me a space filler quote by Gandhi which is irrelevant since his feelings do not reflect that of the communities themselves. The Indian constitution can state that no one is to ever drink wine and people still will, no society is perfect and the proof for the incompatibility of the communities to share the same economic and social space in anything except total majority or total minority is plain to see. No amount of appeasement will fix the condition of Muslims in India and the appeasement itself is an addition to resentment of Muslims by Hindus in India.

The problem is not that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together in large populations ;it is that they cannot live together with the historical baggage they all carried at that time and still do so today. It has NOTHING to do with pure religion, but is a result of socio economic factors that tend to show up when resources are scarce and competition is fierce.

Why is it that Rural India has MUCH less reports of Hindu Muslim conflict than Urban India?

I agree with highlighted portion of your statement...Trust me, the more and more Hindus and Muslim will be afluent in India, the clash of our historical baggage will increase rather than decrease due to the increase in confidence of each of the communities which will try to find a space in the Indian history as a dominant player in politics...