Our Turkic Connection

atif2: #42: Finally, after a long time, we can see the fledgling emergence of genuine humor. Uptil this point, hamidm was the only one holding the fort. And he seems to be getting tired and somewhat stale. He needs some replacement........

Your wall theory has a lot of weightage. One would think, after x number of invasions, someone would have built a wall.

Godot # 42

You are welcome to disagree.

nhk

rsridher # 40

No one is being glorified or de-glorified. Every dog has his day. This Turlic phenoomenon of history can not be wished away just because they rubbed us the wrong way some time back. We were not their only victims.

It is better to understand it and reconcile with it. And if possible, expolit it to our advantage. They did manage to uproot and change the world the way it was.

No wonder France is so finicky in getting Turkey into EU.

nhk

atif2#41:

India doesn`t need a wall any more; they have instead this buffer state between them and West of the subcontinent, called Pakistan. Those banias did have a foresight, after all. ;)

NHK -

You should get your story straight before you cut-and-paste from unidentified and unnamed sources. You say, “Think of a time around 400 BC.” Where did you get this? History of the Turks is not traceable before 500 AD. “We first hear of the Turks in about 500,” says J. M. Roberts in A Short History of the World Oxford University Press 1993.

And what’s this “That was not a very polite of him,” and “...small families made their living by grazing sheep and cattle.” Who has been giving you English lessons and teaching you how to write, for God’s sake? Fire him.

The sentences and paragraphs in this “article” are disjointed and don’t flow logically, as if all of it is put together mindlessly from various sources.

Your unhealthy obsession with ethnicity combined with plagiarism and poor writing ability is a reflection of your intellectual ineptitude.

Re: # 42
Don`t get stomach ulcers, dear man!

Why should Nazar Khan worry about history and facts when he is interested only in statements professing his point of view! Oviously he is distant repreesantative of other Khans- Chingiz, Kublai and Hulagu Khans who burnt libraries remember!!
Give him a break please!

ranjit # 26 raises a very interesting point ``If only we hindus had the foresight to construct a wall along our western borders, we would have been the best country in the world.``

``best``...hmmmmm!

The fact that Indians have yet to build that wall gives me this sinking feeling that India will be invaded yet again from the west. The current hiatus of 60 years since a western power invaded india is just a brief respite. As it stands currently, India cant even plug the flow of kashmiri tourists who venture into India, blow a few Indian soldiers and then walk back into safe houses.

It took a few mongol invasions before the chinese built a wall that today can be seen from moon. It took a few Kayutsha rockets before Israel built one. It took the mere possibility of seeping propaganda before Berliners built one. But it has been thousands of years of invasions, land grabbings, conversions and lootings, yet, India is far from building that wall.

Could it be that Indians are simply too lazy to construct a wall? Could it be that this culture of afternoon siestas impedes progress towards solidly defending the porous borders? Could it be that the high rates of dysentery in general population through out history hindered clear thinking and the lifting of big blocks of concrete?

My personal opinion is that deep down Indians look towards west for the import of high culture. And more often than not it comes in the form of an invasion.

re: this article
Nazar Sahib,
You have come up below the standards expected of you.
Turks have spent most of their last several centuries in trying to dominate others. If one is misled to think that glory is attained only by subjugating other race, Turks may have a claim to glory but they have little else to show.
#39 by ozerkhalid
``Turkey is a craddle of civilisation. My mum is from Istanbul, where a bilateral cornucopia breeds..``
Let us see: your mom is Turkish, so Turkey is good in your views. Can`t blame u but you are not being objective.
Turk is not a cradle of civilization. Perhaps u have not read history. Look to Egypt, Sumeria, Indus Valley etc. for cradle of civilization.
Turks, IMO, are bloody barbarians. Read up how Timurlane the Turk ransacked the city of Delhi and ordered everyone to be beheaded. That is Civilization for you.
Sridhar

Nazar Khan

My mother is Turkish. My dad hails from Pakistan. Your article very insightfully threads these two cultures with opulent heritage. Musharraf`s dad was a Defence Attache in Ankara, and as a child Musharraf spent several of his formative years in Turkey, to my pleasant surprise he speaks a rich dose of Turkish. In Ankara one of our main avenues is called ``Muhammed Ali Jinnah Caddessi (Avenue). The same goes for Ataturk Avenue in Islamabad.

The amity and river of similitude between Turkey and Pakistan runs into the deepest stream. The very word ``Urdu`` derives from the Turkish ``ordu`` denoting ``millitary``. Cellaludin Rumi`s tomb in Konya has soil from Allam Iqbal`s in Lahore. Iqbal was greatly inspired by Rumi and Konya`s dervishes (PS Naqshbandi you will be eager to know this).

Pakistan, amongst the comity of Islamic nations, was the first to, de jure and de facto recognise the Northern Republic of Turkish Cyprus. In fact Islamabad is one of the very few capitals graced with a Northern Cypriot Turkish Embassy.

Turkey is a craddle of civilisation. My mum is from Istanbul, where a bilateral cornucopia breeds:

Between East and West.

Turkey is where the twain meet.

Cok Selamlar

Ve gorusmek uzere.

Kendinizi iyi bakin.

Re: # 39 Thanks for your comments.
We always support Turkey against greeks and for division of Cyprus. It is classical dilectics of Jinnahism. As QAMA Jinnah ideas about such matters/ Christian and muslims are nations in little island and logical is they can not cohabit. But I am not happy with Turkey recently as they did not support at all war with India in Kashmir in battle field of Kargil, ( They adviced to talk and settle, did not condem India out rightly or rush arms and fighting man power,while pakistan always supports Turkey against splitists of mountain turks ( Kurds). Also in 1971 Turkey did not send any army or airmachines againnst India. Also turkish govt and people behave as if they are not part of Ummah. Worst they make military exercise with Israel and have very friendly relationship . Though some times pay lip service to PLO, they cry with PLO but party with Israel. They also send F-16 for overoiling and regular maintenance to Israel. They deny Kurdish people right for their language.
It appears Pakistan carries all burden of Ummah and all others just give lip service. Also turkish companies did not make good work on ``Motorway`` and stole money some say.
I agree they are white people and that is great feature and side by side living with europe. It is sad instead of joining Ummah they are more interested in Joining EU.
I think turkey uses pakistan and do not help Pakistan.

#26 by ranjit {``If only we hindus had the foresight to construct a wall along our western borders, we would have been the best country in the world. ``}

Yaar ranjit, my Hindu ancestors tried, but the damned Moose Limbs just bribed the guards at the gates and they were let through. :)

Salim Ahmed Chauhan

Good Man Di Laantan:
Salim is back in form. Every word is well said.
Like I have been saying all along on Chowk. Eventually a Europe like framework would happen in India/Pak, assuming they both make equal progress.

Ranjit #34, {``I agree with you. But the ball is really in Pakistan`s court to acomplish this. Over the years, India has taken tremendous steps to implement a democratic and highly secular polity. In fact, the current government in power in Delhi is probably the most secular government in the world.``}

Yes, and India, as the more responsible and mature country needs to do even more. The secession of East Pakistan, the internal strife in Pakiland among Shias and Sunnis, and the constant failure of democratic regimes are all indications of the failed policy of partition. There never was a case for partition and the more India succeeds, the more obvious this will become to everyone - including the Pakis themselves.

Here is what I stated on the new Kashmir board.

Farooq Bhai,
You are a brave man to raise the Kashmir issue again. I have thought about this, debated with both Indians and Pakis about this, and have finally come to the following conclusion:

Pakistan`s position of ``give us Kashmir, hold a plebiscite in Kashmir, it`s a Muslim majority area and therefore belongs to Pakiland`` has rapidly deteriorated into utter nonsense.

Let`s see why?

India is not going to give Kashmir to Pakiland, just because Pakistan insists that it happen. Pakistan wanted Junagadh and Manavadar at one time and considered Hyderabad a disputed area also. I think we all agree that both Junagadh and Manavadar issues have long been settled, thanks to Pakiland finally forgetting about the impossible claims. Hyderabad never attained the level of a claim, and everyone agrees that Hyderabad is firmly in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, both integral parts of India.

Holding a plebiscite in Kashmir, although the UN resolution demanded it, is not going to happen. UN resolutions, like old fish, tend to get smelly and disposable. There never was a plebiscite for the 1947 partition. The Muslim League winning majorities in Muslim majority provinces was not a blank check for partition. Also, one could argue that Indian Kashmir has had several elections, there have been elected Muslim Chief Ministers, and elected Muslim representatives more often than in Pakiland over the last 58 years.

Yes, Kashmir is a Muslim majority area and so are Sinkiang, Nazareth, Muradabad, maybe Bhopal, and even Hyderabad, and possibly parts of Southall, Jackson Heights, Mississuaga, and Chicago. A Muslim majority does not necessarily mean that all the people living there need to become citizens of a Pakiland or equivalent. By the way, Bangladesh is also an overwhelmingly Muslim area. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world and Indian Muslims appear to get along with each other much better than their coreligionists in Pakiland. That ought to be good for some points, at least.

Enough time and energy has been wasted in trying to make every excuse in the world to get Kashmir to become a part of Pakistan. If Pakis were more honest, they would say simply that Kashmir is necessary because almost all of Pakiland`s water resources pass through it. Perhaps, if Pakiland agreed to the LoC as the border, then India could provide guarantees for Pakis` liquid concerns.

Salim Ahmed Chauhan

Re:googenschlaugen#33

``Let`s try to make the present and future better. Not much can be done about the past. I think India, with the 2nd largest Muslim population in the world with its democratic credentials and renowned tolerance, is the ideal place to prove that good will overcome evil for all people.``

I agree with you. But the ball is really in Pakistan`s court to acomplish this. Over the years, India has taken tremendous steps to implement a democratic and highly secular polity. In fact, the current government in power in Delhi is probably the most secular government in the world. Even Advani has paid homage to Jinnah and explicitly endorsed partition. In Kashmir, India has started the bus service and allowed the APHC leaders to visit Pakistan. It held free and fair elections in Kashmir giving them full self-government and has given billions in aid to develop Kashmir.

In spite of this, we have 10-15 people getting killed every day in Kashmir. The violence has not stopped. Even school children have been blown up. Pakistan is unable to govern its own territory successfully, yet it is relentless in asking for a territorial settlement of Kashmir i.e. take over more land. It is unwilling to open up trade, transit or travel until Kashmir resolved. Its hard stance against normalization has created a level of frustration where people are feeling that hindu-muslim issues and Indo-Pak issues are unresolveable. The Pakistani view is that normal, decent relations with India is equal to capitulation - the end of the dream for Islamic supremacy in the subcontinent. It is viewed as some sort of defeat for the original purpose of Islam arriving here. Thus the unwillingness to coexist comes from the Muslim side as they are alway trying to disturb the status quo to harm hindus. Hindus have been trying to coexist forever.

Ranjit #32, {``This opposition is against the entire hindu faith across all cultural differences i.e. the Punjabi hindu is hated as much as the Tamilian hindu or the Kashmiri hindu. The logic behind this hatred or opposition is simple - propagate the faith by pulling down the local religion and create a class of people loyal to muslim rulers. ...

Now if South Asian muslims really give up their opposition to hindus and behave like their counterparts in Iran and Afghanistan in terms of affinity to local culture, then the dynamics can change. If there is no threat, there is no need for a defense.``}

Ranjit, my friend, I do not blame you for having that type of black and white attitude about Muslims and Islam. The track record of Muslims in the subcontinent has not been exemplary from the conquest of Mohammed Bin Qasim all the way down to the partition of 1947. Of course, there were numerous periods and examples of justice, affection, compassion, and understanding. What you are missing is that as cruel as Muslim rule and Muslim conqueriors may have been, they were equally, if not more, cruel to other Muslims. Please do not look at Islam and Muslims as a monolith. The religious wars between Shias and Sunnis, as recently as Iraq/Iran and the blowing up of Shia mosques in Pakistan are examples of the basic intolerance that permeates the Islamic experience and Muslim history. Believe me, Hindus were not singled out for destruction, butchery, and intolerance. Muslims excel in doing these things to other Muslims. As they say, charity begins at home.
Let`s try to make the present and future better. Not much can be done about the past. I think India, with the 2nd largest Muslim population in the world with its democratic credentials and renowned tolerance, is the ideal place to prove that good will overcome evil for all people.

Re:Romair#29

``Do you consider all Hindus to be one group i.e. one civilization? Do you similarly consider Muslims to be a different and unique civilization?``

Great questions. I do not consider all hindus to be one group or one civilization, given regional differences, linguistic difference and even in religious rituals.

However, I do consider that all muslims belong to a different and unique civilization in the South Asian context. The reason is that since the days of Mohd. bin Qasim, muslims all over South Asia have been systematically indoctrinated to be against hindus. This opposition is against the entire hindu faith across all cultural differences i.e. the Punjabi hindu is hated as much as the Tamilian hindu or the Kashmiri hindu. The logic behind this hatred or opposition is simple - propagate the faith by pulling down the local religion and create a class of people loyal to muslim rulers. This opposition mindset overpowers all the cultural differences that exist among muslims since they are united in this sentiment. It was this opposition that fueled the muslim league to oppose the congress. It was this opposition that resulted in partition where even muslims in South India supported Pakistan knowing fully well that they would never go there.

Why is this mindset only among South Asian muslims? Primarily because Islam was not successful in 100% conversion of India unlike in Iran or Afghanistan. In those countries, once the entire population got converted, the muslim vs local conflict had no meaning left. Hence muslims were willing to retain some of the local traditions and cultures and even defend those practices. Therefore, you see cultural differences between Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans etc based on traditional geographic contours. But you do not see that in India, where Punjabi muslims and Punjabi hindus still hate each other as they did in 1000 AD.

Hence I believe that the only way for hindus to defend themselves and succeed in South Asia is to morph our identity and dissolve our cultural differences to create a religious identity. Hindus traditionally do not have that mindset. When hindus were losing to muslims in Punjab, people in Bihar or Tamil Nadu did not care. Soon entire India got conquered. Well, that apathy must never occur again. A strong hindu identity will enable us to unite and defend our faith and way of life.

Now if South Asian muslims really give up their opposition to hindus and behave like their counterparts in Iran and Afghanistan in terms of affinity to local culture, then the dynamics can change. If there is no threat, there is no need for a defense. However, I do not see that happening. Even now, every Pakistani wants negative things to happen to India all the time. They do not want it to succeed economically or as a nation. They reflexively oppose India`s growth and power. Of course, they want Kashmir but that is not the only thing. They will oppose India being given a permanent seat in the UN. In fact, they will just oppose anything good that happens to India. So we have to recognize that mindset and react to it.