Who is India's strategic partner of India? Iran or Israel

[bozorgmehr]

Doing fine ... thanks for asking.
Well, we don't think tricks and diplomacy go well. Thanks but no thanks.

Well, ok then! Nothing offered, nothing accepted, no harm done... carry on.

 

[below_freezing]

No, i am afraid you are thinking of China who is still being humiliated through Taiwan.

By the way, i can see that other Chinese members have casted doubts of your nationality.

who has? can you point them out? people have asked about lhuang, atlantis_cn and westwind but never me. maybe thats because i actually write in chinese unlike them.

i'm telling you the truth, straight up, do you think the US is actually scared of iran by itself? no, it is not, it is thinking of the geopolitical implications of an attack on iran. naturally, this does not include the impact on iran itself since the only impact on iran would be that of their cruise missiles, but of how large countries near iran would react.

i can understand your nationalism and being proud of your country but its time to be realistic: while the US would not have an easy time doing so, it has the capability to replace any independent iranian government with a US puppet through military force.

 

[Nima]

who has? can you point them out? people have asked about lhuang, atlantis_cn and westwind but never me. maybe thats because i actually write in chinese unlike them.

i'm telling you the truth, straight up, do you think the US is actually scared of iran by itself? no, it is not, it is thinking of the geopolitical implications of an attack on iran. naturally, this does not include the impact on iran itself since the only impact on iran would be that of their cruise missiles, but of how large countries near iran would react.

i can understand your nationalism and being proud of your country but its time to be realistic: while the US would not have an easy time doing so, it has the capability to replace any independent iranian government with a US puppet through military force.

Buddy how the hell can the US change a govt w/out putting troops on the ground? We all know that there is no ******* way that they can do that and even if they do Iranians are gonna fight them on ground till 3010!
Why do people talk out of their behind so much on this forum?

 

[Nima]

.. blunt but very true

another person talking out of his ***
care to explain?

 

[DesiGuy]

Israel is very important for India due to Israel advance technology.


But i think Iran is even more important, as it's one of important Muslims nations and that will surely help India improve relations with other Muslims countries.

 

[bozorgmehr]

No one asked you to be a slave of the west and no one expects that. You cannot exist in this world in isolation. You make some arrangements with other countries and sign a few pacts that you will abide by. All that is expected in conformance and proof of conformance to the pacts that you have willingly approved of for benefits that regimes in your country wanted.

Nice moral platitudes! Except that throughout history there have always been instances of more powerful nations imposing their will on weaker ones and laying control over their natural and human resources, thereby enslaving them. I reckon you lot haven't forgotten the very recent experiences of your own nation. But I suppose it's now more expedient for the perceived interests of the Indians to preach such niceties. Which is all the more evidence of their moral fibre and integrity of their character.

 

[Kabir Panthi]

From food, to architecture, to music, to language, the Iranian influence and heritage may clearly be observed. From naan, dampokht and biryani to Taj Mahal to Sitaar and Santoor the Iranian link is obvious. Much of this can be attributed to the Moghals empire. But still, the fact remains...

The converse, however, is not true. There's very little, culturally or materially, in either historic or contemporary Iran, that can be traced back to India.

None of the things you mention are really an essential part of the Indic civilization (furthermore - as is obvious from Badshahnama of Shah Jahan, the Taj Mahal is an older Indic building that was taken over by Shah Jahan - further discussion of original 16th century sources will be off-topic here.)

But as regards civilizational commonalities, this is what I was referring to:

In fact, the oldest Avestan is so similar to the oldest Sanskrit that you can translate text in one language to another by applying few phonological changes.

Ancient Scripts: Avestan

Avestan Old Iranian & Rig Vedic Sanskrit Similarities
The oldest language or dialect in the Avesta, the language of the Gathas and the Yasna Haptanghaiti, is close of the old Sanskrit language used in the Rig Veda, the older Hindu scriptures. Together, they form some of the oldest surviving literature in the world.

The following is an example of the closeness of the Avestan and Sanskrit languages:
Old Iranian/Avestan: aevo pantao yo ashahe, vispe anyaesham apantam (Yasna 72.11)
Old Indian/Sanskrit: abade pantha he ashae, visha anyaesham apantham
Translation: the one path is that of Asha, all others are not-paths.
[The Sanskrit translation of the Avestan was provided to this writer by Dr. Satyan Banerjee.]

Proto Indo-Iranian
The comparative example of the Avestan and Sanskrit languages above demonstrate that the languages are so close that they are for all practical purposes dialects of the same language.

Zoroastrian Avestan Languages

But I agree that that may have little significance for modern-day Iranians ... after their defeat by the Arabs, they adopted the religion of their conquerors.

 

[below_freezing]

Buddy how the hell can the US change a govt w/out putting troops on the ground? We all know that there is no ******* way that they can do that and even if they do Iranians are gonna fight them on ground till 3010!
Why do people talk out of their behind so much on this forum?

well, its very easy actually. the CIA is a master at creating fake news and using small amounts of terrorists to organize a huge following. Sometimes they are way too successful and the terrorists they create bite them back like Osama Bin Laden.

Who is to say they have to put troops on the ground? They can use troops around iran to scare the current leadership, make some fake news and fake terrorist attacks, then "aid a struggling democratic movement" and move in at which point a dictator that listens to the US takes over. It's not like they haven't done it in your country before, in 1953.

 

[Bang Galore]

Nice moral platitudes! Except that throughout history there have always been instances of more powerful nations imposing their will on weaker ones and laying control over their natural and human resources, thereby enslaving them. I reckon you lot haven't forgotten the very recent experiences of your own nation. But I suppose it's now more expedient for the perceived interests of the Indians to preach such niceties. Which is all the more evidence of their moral fibre and integrity of their character.

I doubt most Indians on this site even understand the meaning of the word partner, let alone a 'strategic' one! Iran is certainly not India's partner. Just because you sell something to somebody, it doesn't make you partners. The 2 countries only do a very limited amount of business with one another. That's all. All these rumors about Iran allowing its territory to be used by Indian military or them 'developing' the Chahbahar deep sea port in return for a free hand elsewhere, are nothing but the result of feverish and delusional Indian minds. The vast majority of Iranians will be insulted simply by the insinuation of that.

But I understand why most Indians might think that. They see themselves and their country's interests as objects to be had by others and up for sale to the highest bidder. So they think Iran may also settle for this kind of arrangement, due to the difficulties we are facing right now. Little do they know that this the fundamental difference between us and them! They were happy to hand control of their country over to the East India Company and become British slaves. Whereas the Iranians citizens themselves stepped in and boycotted, revolted, deposed the king, wrote a constitution, created a parliament, held elections and often gave their very lives to cut the hands of Russian and British influence off of our country, when it looked like the people in charge might fall asleep at the wheel.

Sigh! Another guy who lives in the U.S. telling us poor natives that we sold our souls. What's with you Iranians? Don't want any friends?
Insulting a nation of 1.2 billion who want to be your friend is really,really smart! Now I'm beginning to understand how diplomacy works with Iran. Call your enemies every name you could possibly think of. Say the same things to those who want to be your friend!

Yeah!Yeah! You have nothing to be inspired by India! Wonder though why Mousavi's supporters were calling him Iran's Gandhi, why were Gandhi's quotes used during demonstrations? Surely India & Indians have nothing to offer? Cannot remember an Indian leader being compared to Ahmadinejad for instance. Actually that's possible but not as a favourable comparison.

You know, I like Iran for the greatness of its culture & ancient history and for the achievements of its people. You guys are doing your best to change that view. Sigh!

 

[Novice09]

India has 80% Hindu population.

Theres more than 910 million Hindus in your country and your country's total population is 1.2 billion people.

The vast majority of your people are Hindus. Accept that fact.

Still our Prime Minister is a Sikh Accept This fact too

 

[bozorgmehr]

None of the things you mention are really an essential part of the Indic civilization (furthermore - as is obvious from Badshahnama of Shah Jahan, the Taj Mahal is an older Indic building that was taken over by Shah Jahan - further discussion of original 16th century sources will be off-topic here.)

But as regards civilizational commonalities, this is what I was referring to:




But I agree that that may have little significance for modern-day Iranians ... after their defeat by the Arabs, they adopted the religion of their conquerors.

I wasn't talking about 'essential' parts of Indic civilization, whatever that means! As far as I know, some pretty essetial parts of the Indic civilization didn't even happen in India. And some pretty essential parts of the Indic civilization didn't look anything like the vast majority of Indians today. Not that I care... just saying...

No, I was talking about modern day India and what it looks like today. And I don't know if there previously was a building on the site of Taj Mahal or if anybody had taken a leak there before. All I'm saying is that the most iconic landmark in India is a very obvious extension of Iranian architecture.

As for the ancient roots of Iranians and the history of religion in Iran, I will teach you about that in another thread.

 

[faithfulguy]

As for the ancient roots of Iranians and the history of religion in Iran, I will teach you about that in another thread.

India certainly had its share of invaders from the west. Sweeping down the central asia and take over India. That is why Indian architecture in the past 1000 or so years has a lot of Arab, Iranian influence.

I would be interested in finding more about Iran. Let me know which thread.

 

[Kabir Panthi]

I wasn't talking about 'essential' parts of Indic civilization, whatever that means! As far as I know, some pretty essetial parts of the Indic civilization didn't even happen in India. And some pretty essential parts of the Indic civilization didn't look anything like the vast majority of Indians today. Not that I care... just saying...

"as far as you know" ... wise words to use - because as far as Indic civilization is concerned your knowledge could be quite limited.

No, I was talking about modern day India and what it looks like today. And I don't know if there previously was a building on the site of Taj Mahal or if anybody had taken a leak there before. All I'm saying is that the most iconic landmark in India is a very obvious extension of Iranian architecture.

India was ruled for time by the Mughals, but they were defeated by the Marathas and Sikhs, who in turn were replaced by British for about 100 years. Modern day India was mostly built post-1947, although some relics of the British era do survive. The relics of the Maratha, Sikh and even earlier Muslim rulers are to be found only in some crowded downtown areas.

Anyway, as regards the Taj is concerned - the original 17th century records make it quite obvious that the Taj predates Shah Jahan, and was purchased by him from a Rajput king. As far as the architectural style is concerned - it is primarily Indic, but I have no problems in granting that there could be some Iranic influence.

As for the ancient roots of Iranians and the history of religion in Iran, I will teach you about that in another thread.

You are welcome to do that, my only point was that the loss of religious identity that the Iranians suffered may have reduced some commonalities to an extent.

 

[Nima]

well, its very easy actually. the CIA is a master at creating fake news and using small amounts of terrorists to organize a huge following. Sometimes they are way too successful and the terrorists they create bite them back like Osama Bin Laden.

Who is to say they have to put troops on the ground? They can use troops around iran to scare the current leadership, make some fake news and fake terrorist attacks, then "aid a struggling democratic movement" and move in at which point a dictator that listens to the US takes over. It's not like they haven't done it in your country before, in 1953.

you watch wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many movies!
1)Troops around Iran>>>already there, in fact in every single border and have been for many years.
2)terrorist attacks>>>> every year jundollah blows up smtg but it never has any impact, their leader was captured last month. Jundollah is an American terrorist group and in the last decade they have had close to no effect and now their leader is in an Iranian jail
3)There is no struggling democratic guerilla group anywhere in Iran or around it. In the past there was a group called MEK but they were disarmed after the US occupied IRaq and their camp was completely closed last year. There isn't any group to support.
4) Iranians, whether reformists or hardliners, are extremely nationalistic. There is a bigger chance of Paris Hilton becoming Iran's president then Iran becoming a US puppet again. Even these reformists today (Mousavi and co) were the original founders of the 1979 revolution.

Iran isn't Guatemala buddy

 

[below_freezing]

you watch wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many movies!
1)Troops around Iran>>>already there, in fact in every single border and have been for many years.
2)terrorist attacks>>>> every year jundollah blows up smtg but it never has any impact, their leader was captured last month. Jundollah is an American terrorist group and in the last decade they have had close to no effect and now their leader is in an Iranian jail
3)There is no struggling democratic guerilla group anywhere in Iran or around it. In the past there was a group called MEK but they were disarmed after the US occupied IRaq and their camp was completely closed last year. There isn't any group to support.
4) Iranians, whether reformists or hardliners, are extremely nationalistic. There is a bigger chance of Paris Hilton becoming Iran's president then Iran becoming a US puppet again. Even these reformists today (Mousavi and co) were the original founders of the 1979 revolution.

Iran isn't Guatemala buddy

so can you explain how the US did the exact same thing in 1953?