Why Türkiye should rethink its relations with India

[masterchief_mirza]

Ok, at that time the Maratha state and the state of Mysore didn't exactly have cordial relations. You are looking at history from 200 years in advance. This means you know what happened in the future post the Mysore British wars and the Maratha British wars. The Marathas never imagined that the British would rule the entire India in just a few years. You know what happened, but people in that era didn't. In hindsight, we can say that yes, the Marathas and in fact all the kingdoms in India should've fought in a united manner against the British. Then they could resume whatever quarrels they have among themselves.

And it's not like the Marathas didn't fight with the British. The Marathas and British fought 3 wars in total.

By your logic, all the Indians in the British Army(significant proportion being the Punjabis) are traitors and should not be celebrated. They indeed are in a sense but you'll see these people in the Army were serving the Indian and Pakistani army post independence.

Also, in the Battle of Talikota that @MayaBazar referenced in which the Sultanates joined together against the Vijaynagar Empire, unfortunately the Marathas sided with the Sultans. (many Maratha soldiers in the Sultanate armies). I hope you call them backstabbers there as well as the local Sultanates were foreigners fighting against indigenous local kingdoms.

And if you go further back, I hope you call your Punjabi kin as backstabbers who couldn't put up decent resistance against the invaders. In fact, there's nothing much to show for from the indigenous people of your region.

Inability to resist colonialism by distant powers is totally different to active backstabbing against local rivals. Local rivals - when they fight each other - have vested interests in local issues and hence motivations are those for some kind of sustained and sustainable takeover. European colonialism was smash n grab. Look at the Spanish in south America for example. Motivations are different. I really shouldn't need to explain this. Moreover, different local city states vying for local control is fair game and a natural progression of the history of nations.

Can the entire population of the subcontinent (excluding perhaps the deccan peninsula and the ancient IVC who actually resisted them) be regarded specifically as "backstabbers" for capitulating to the Aryan invaders and moreover accepting them as a superior race dominant over native peoples for all eternity?

Of course you're trying to oversimplify the terminology and extrapolate definitions for obvious reasons. The one reasonable argument that could come out of this is that the marathas simply made an informed decision that a future with British co-rule or even under them served their interests better than a future with or under mysoreans or other local empires. It's still regarded as collusion with a foreign enemy but I can see the justification in arbitrary terms. Then the question arises: were the mysoreans so terrible and brutal towards marathas to earn such a fate? Feel free to explain this to me as I genuinely am not that clued up on that much of maratha-mysorean interactions.

Maybe the British Christians were simply a better option at the time.

You're forgetting that "Muslim" Nizam was more stable and permanent ally of the British than the Marathas,

Not forgetting. I'm well aware of these traitors also. You honestly think I'm making distinctions on the basis of religion?

This is the error greatmaratha also makes with me.

I'm pointing out that certain groups in the subcontinent drew a line at seeking support from those who were looters whereas some were happy to collude despite knowing full well the person they're colluding with would vassalise their state and guarantee foreign subservience.

Let him prove right by posting even just one statement of Jinnah where he said that Pakistan will be a secular state ----

 

[shah_123]

Inability to resist colonialism by distant powers is totally different to active backstabbing against local rivals. Local rivals - when they fight each other - have vested interests in local issues and hence motivations are those for some kind of sustained and sustainable takeover. European colonialism was smash n grab. Look at the Spanish in south America for example. Motivations are different. I really shouldn't need to explain this. Moreover, different local city states vying for local control is fair game and a natural progression of the history of nations.

Can the entire population of the subcontinent (excluding perhaps the deccan peninsula and the ancient IVC who actually resisted them) be regarded specifically as "backstabbers" for capitulating to the Aryan invaders and moreover accepting them as a superior race dominant over native peoples for all eternity?

Of course you're trying to oversimplify the terminology and extrapolate definitions for obvious reasons. The one reasonable argument that could come out of this is that the marathas simply made an informed decision that a future with British co-rule or even under them served their interests better than a future with or under mysoreans or other local empires. It's still regarded as collusion with a foreign enemy but I can see the justification in arbitrary terms. Then the question arises: were the mysoreans so terrible and brutal towards marathas to earn such a fate? Feel free to explain this to me as I genuinely am not that clued up on that much of maratha-mysorean interactions.

Maybe the British Christians were simply a better option at the time.


Not forgetting. I'm well aware of these traitors also. You honestly think I'm making distinctions on the basis of religion?

This is the error greatmaratha also makes with me.

I'm pointing out that certain groups in the subcontinent drew a line at seeking support from those who were looters whereas some were happy to collude despite knowing full well the person they're colluding with would vassalise their state and guarantee foreign subservience.


View attachment 635154

"I cannot understand the logic of those who have been deliberately and mischievously propagating that the Constitution of Pakistan will not be based on Islamic Sharia. Islamic principles today are as much applicable to life as they were 1300 years ago."

Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Speech to Karachi Bar Association, January 25th, 1948.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

@Naofumi I'm just catching up with this thread. Why did you even assume I accept nizam's treachery but not that of the marathas? I feel you're being unfairly biased towards me. Not sure if I offended you somewhere along the line. You and other Hindu pdf "moderates" need to be at peace with the fact that Pakistanis are well aware that Muslims - sometimes the most "religious" - can be equally traitorous to nationalistic causes as Hindus. This concept obviously doesn't compute in India because of hindutva falsely believing it has some monopoly on subcontinental nationalistic thought.

"I cannot understand the logic of those who have been deliberately and mischievously propagating that the Constitution of Pakistan will not be based on Islamic Sharia. Islamic principles today are as much applicable to life as they were 1300 years ago."

Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Speech to Karachi Bar Association, January 25th, 1948.

What on earth is your point here? Nothing wrong with having legal edicts grounded in religious doctrines. Do you know what British Common Law is and where it came from? I legally am obliged to pay money to local churches when I take out a mortgage in this Christian land. Take your anti-jinnah claptrap elsewhere.

@shah_123 you'll find plenty of Indians happy to uptick your misrepresentations of Pakistan's founding father. Mercifully, Pakistanis are better informed and less conniving.

 

[shah_123]

@Naofumi I'm just catching up with this thread. Why did you even assume I accept nizam's treachery but not that of the marathas? I feel you're being unfairly biased towards me. Not sure if I offended you somewhere along the line. You and other Hindu pdf "moderates" need to be at peace with the fact that Pakistanis are well aware that Muslims - sometimes the most "religious" - can be equally traitorous to nationalistic causes as Hindus. This concept obviously doesn't compute in India because of hindutva falsely believing it has some monopoly on subcontinental nationalistic thought.


What on earth is your point here? Nothing wrong with having legal edicts grounded in religious doctrines. Do you know what British Common Law is and where it came from? I legally am obliged to pay money to local churches when I take out a mortgage in this Christian land. Take your anti-jinnah claptrap elsewhere.

@shah_123 you'll find plenty of Indians happy to uptick your misrepresentations of Pakistan's founding father. Mercifully, Pakistanis are better informed and less conniving.

The point is, Jinnah himself responded to the controversy created by some people.
I can't change stance just to please Indians and I don't care what makes them happy.

Pakistan is Islamic republic of Pakistan and will remain Islamic republic of Pakistan.

 

[Naofumi]

@Naofumi I'm just catching up with this thread. Why did you even assume I accept nizam's treachery but not that of the marathas? I feel you're being unfairly biased towards me. Not sure if I offended you somewhere along the line. You and other Hindu pdf "moderates" need to be at peace with the fact that Pakistanis are well aware that Muslims - sometimes the most "religious" - can be equally traitorous to nationalistic causes as Hindus. This concept obviously doesn't compute in India because of hindutva falsely believing it has some monopoly on subcontinental nationalistic thought.

Pardon my ignorance if my misinterpreted you but the wording was not clear cut too.

What kind of nonsensical claim is this? Every mughal and Muslim-led city state opponent of Britain asked Hindus and Muslims to join together and expel the British. If it wasn't for backstabbing marathas then Tipu Sultan may have beaten the English back. You need to stop worshipping Hindus alone as the only ones who wanted to keep the clans united. Compared to Tipu who gave his life on the front line resisting the colonialists, I'm not even sure if Gandhi comes remotely close.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Pardon my ignorance if my misinterpreted you but the wording was not clear cut too.

I said the ones that were opponents of Britain, not all of them. The wording is quite clear if you review it.

Some obviously sold out.

 

[Aswaklanta D]

We should have good relationship with Turkey.
Common trade and business help both country.
There kashmir stand is not serious and they have to do it because they also having good relationship with Pakistan.
They only saying, So it is ok. If we make good business relationship it's alright.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Gandhi always fought for the unity of Hindus and Muslims to fight against the British rule. No other British Indian leader fought so hard for the Hindu-Muslim unity.

Why then he kept quite when zinnah was asking for equal number of seats for Muslims in the parliament?

 

[Saithan]

@cabatli_53 I don’t think this thread is in the wrong forum.

I don’t think anything needed to be said after my first post (this being my second in this thread).

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Inability to resist colonialism by distant powers is totally different to active backstabbing against local rivals. Local rivals - when they fight each other - have vested interests in local issues and hence motivations are those for some kind of sustained and sustainable takeover. European colonialism was smash n grab. Look at the Spanish in south America for example. Motivations are different. I really shouldn't need to explain this. Moreover, different local city states vying for local control is fair game and a natural progression of the history of nations.

Can the entire population of the subcontinent (excluding perhaps the deccan peninsula and the ancient IVC who actually resisted them) be regarded specifically as "backstabbers" for capitulating to the Aryan invaders and moreover accepting them as a superior race dominant over native peoples for all eternity?

Of course you're trying to oversimplify the terminology and extrapolate definitions for obvious reasons. The one reasonable argument that could come out of this is that the marathas simply made an informed decision that a future with British co-rule or even under them served their interests better than a future with or under mysoreans or other local empires. It's still regarded as collusion with a foreign enemy but I can see the justification in arbitrary terms. Then the question arises: were the mysoreans so terrible and brutal towards marathas to earn such a fate? Feel free to explain this to me as I genuinely am not that clued up on that much of maratha-mysorean interactions.

Maybe the British Christians were simply a better option at the time.

Marathas might have allied with the British is because they might have wanted to end the Mysore empire. Simple regional politics. And that's what happened. The Mysore state was distributed among the Marathas, British and the Nizam. It's certainly not unprecedented. We see a role reversal a few years prior to that event in the 3rd Battle of Panipat.

Yes, Maratha Mysore relations were not amiable in any sense and both were constantly fighting with each other even before the British came into the picture. So it's not like a friend betrayed his friend.

A more accurate betrayal would be Mir Sadiq who was Tipu Sultan's chief minister who was colluding with the British.

You mentioned that Marathas made an informed decision that future with British co-rule or under them would serve the interest of the Marathas. If that was the case, Lord Wellesley wouldn't have regarded the Second Anglo Maratha war (Marathas won the first Anglo Maratha war) that he fought as the toughest of all his battles. (He was part of the 4th Anglo-Mysore war and was also the same guy who handed the defeat to Napolean at Waterloo. He rated the the Battle of Assaye in the 2nd Anglo Maratha war above the one at Waterloo and the toughest. The Marathas on their part considered it neither as a win or a loss though the Britishers considered it as a victory.)

Not forgetting. I'm well aware of these traitors also. You honestly think I'm making distinctions on the basis of religion?

This is the error greatmaratha also makes with me.

Yes, you are quite clearly making distinctions based on religion. In this thread alone, you mentioned Marathas as backstabbers in 3 separate posts while conveniently failing to mention the Nizam in even one of those 3 posts. You only accepted and mentioned Nizam when it was pointed out to you by @Naofumi and @Joe Shearer. In fact, as @Joe Shearer gave a detailed account of the numbers, there was actually no Maratha present during the Siege of Seringapatam where Tipu Sultan lost his life. At least, that's what I could gather from his post (which are many times hard to understand).

Coming back to the Marathas, don't forget that the Marathas checked Portugese expansion from the West. For all intents and purposes, the Portugese were more brutal than the British.

Also, Tipu Sultan too had taken some help from the French which too was a colonial power, not a major one in India probably but definitely in other parts of the world. I respect Tipu Sultan for his brave fight against the British and I'm not saying what the Marathas and Nizam did was right but it was done for their own self-interests of those times.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

western nationalism or eastern nationalism

There is no such thing as 'eastern nationalism'. I see western nationalism and pan-Islamism. The two contradict each other. Pakistan is trying to shoehorn a universal concept - Islam into a entity limited geography with borders. This does not work. It's like your trying to clasp air with your arms in attempt to 'own it' and make it yours. Not possible. It is everywhere. You can't own it or regulate it.

What if Islam's and Pakistan's interests contradict? Which side would Iqbal pick?

As a Muslim. Islam's. Thus you have Al-Qaeda, TTP, Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb Tahir etc. A good Muslim should be striving for a global Islam. Not a natioin state.

And eid Mubarak to all our Turkish, Pakistan friends here ..

The very idea of a nation state is a anathema to Islamic thought which places universal Muslim brotherhood above ethnic, legal, geography based human drawn borders going as states.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

I said the ones that were opponents of Britain, not all of them. The wording is quite clear if you review it.

Some obviously sold out.

You clearly mentioned that 'Every mughal and Muslim-led city state opponent of Britain asked Hindus and Muslims to join together and expel the British.' Of course, an opponent of Britain will ask both Hindus and Muslims to fight the British. It's not like he will ask only the Muslims or only the Hindus to oppose the British. What senseless logic is this. It's not like the Marathas only asked the Hindus to fight. Also, can you name those states? Most states only took up arms against the British as the Britishers were starting to get detrimental for the existence of those states.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

And I hope Turkey does not and will not rethink it's relations with India. It will continue to side ferociously with Pakistan. Only Muslim countries like UAE, Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran can be double faced bastards and be pro India. Turkey is secular. Turkey emphasises nationalism. Turks know they have much to lose over 70 years relationship with not much to gain as Turkish Industry is competeting with Indian industry.

Note for the Pakistani's. some of the most ardent pro Pakistan Turks are athiest, uber Turkic Kemalists. And may they long live in Turkey.

 

[Yankee-stani]

And I hope Turkey does not and will not rethink it's relations with India. It will continue to side ferociously with Pakistan. Only Muslim countries like UAE, Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran can be double faced bastards and be pro India. Turkey is secular. Turkey emphasises nationalism. Turks know they have much to lose over 70 years relationship with not much to gain as Turkish Industry is competeting with Indian industry.

Note for the Pakistani's. some of the most ardent pro Pakistan Turks are athiest, uber Turkic Kemalists. And may they long live in Turkey.

View attachment 635169

Kemalists homies be standing for Pakistani homies

 

[masterchief_mirza]

you are quite clearly making distinctions based on religion.

I'm not though. Plenty of Muslim traitors existed, including the nizam's forces who allied with the marathas and British against Tipu. Not sure how I can be more clear than this. I suspect it bugs you that Pakistanis don't actually conform to the ISIS type ummah chummah musulmans that the Indian state has deliberately nurtured over the years, ostensibly to allow Delhi to very easily villify them when necessary, yet simultaneously trick them with theology-based arguments as to why "Pakistan is evil". When it suits you, you teach Indian Muslims that Pakistanis are "unislamic" and "heretics" and Indian Muslims are true. Otherwise, you riot in their neighbourhood because they're too overtly "Muslim". They can't win.

I'll say it again (and for the record I was well aware before you or Joe or anyone else "informed" me) - plenty of Muslim traitors aligned against Tipu. Doesn't hurt me one bit to say so either.

Did you never watch the serial with Sanjay Khan?

This is frankly quite a bizarre argument. Are you also implying that I don't think there are countless modern Muslims who are completely loyal to non-Muslim majority nations?

Of course, an opponent of Britain will ask both Hindus and Muslims to fight the British.

So you're saying pragmatism in wartime is all that mattered rather than loyalty to sons of the soil. That's debatable but certainly Tipu had loyal Hindu aides and senior staff throughout his rule, not just as a last minute manipulation against Britain.