So Much For Turkey's Claims To Being A Secular State

[Kaljug]

Fateh!

Erdogan calls the riots in Xinjiang a "kind of genocide' and Turkish Muslims burn Chinese flags. This is just a day after the Turkish Industry Minister urges Turks to boycott Chinese goods:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8145451.stm

This is coming from the mouth of the head of state of a nominally sectarian but in reality a Muslim country, who is blaming the Chinese government for the murder of the Chinese Han population at the hands of Muslim Uighur rioters.

He calls this a genocide of the Muslim Uighurs when in fact the Uighur terrorists murdered more than 3 times as much Han Chinese.

This is the same man and the same country that still denies the 1.5 million dead in the Armenian Holocaust at the hamnds of the Ottoman Empire.

It seems that it is only a genocide when Muslims die.

Regards,

K.

[GillAUS]

Fateh!

Erdogan calls the riots in Xinjiang a "kind of genocide' and Turkish Muslims burn Chinese flags. This is just a day after the Turkish Industry Minister urges Turks to boycott Chinese goods:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8145451.stm

This is coming from the mouth of the head of state of a nominally sectarian but in reality a Muslim country, who is blaming the Chinese government for the murder of the Chinese Han population at the hands of Muslim Uighur rioters. This is the same man and the same country that still denies the 1.5 million dead in the Armenian Holocaust at the hamnds of the Ottoman Empire.

It seems that it is only a genocide when Muslims die.

Regards,

K.

Good luck to that, considering 99.9% of goods are produced in China.

Shows the true intellect of these people.

On another note, nice of our buddies across the border kick up a fuss about this

So much for Muslim unity ay, Pakistan? Oh that's right, can't upset big daddy China. The shameless hypocrites would rather send suicide missions to places like Mumbai.

[Kaljug]

Good luck to that, considering 99.9% of goods are produced in China.

Shows the true intellect of these people.

On another note, nice of our buddies across the border kick up a fuss about this

So much for Muslim unity ay, Pakistan? Oh that's right, can't upset big daddy China. The shameless hypocrites would rather send suicide missions to places like Mumbai.

Erdogan is just a greasy-haired Mullah in European dress.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese flags bought by the Turks were made in China. I hope that the cost of the flag pays for the Red Army bullet that shatters some Uighur Muslim terrorist's skull.

Regards,

K.

[Mithar]

Turkey of all nations should be the last to speak up. As mentioned Kalyug, they still deny the Armenian Holocaust. If that wasn't enough have they forgotten how they persecute their Kurdish minority? The Kurds in Turkey are suffering just as much as the Uighurs in China.

And GillAUS has also made an excellent point. What about Pakistan????? They are the first to shout 'Persecution' for Muslims in Kashmir and India. But now that their suger daddy China is doing even worse in East Turkistan they are all quiet like a cat. Another great example of Pakistani hypocrisy

[dalsingh101]

Turkey has lots of forces pushing pulling within. The army is the main bastion of secularism. They are loyal to the ideology of Ataturk, the Turkish reformer.

[dalsingh101]

The religion of Islam will be elevated if it will cease to be a political instrument, as had been the case in the past."[26]

—Mustafa Kemal

On 3 March 1924, the Caliphate was officially abolished and its powers within Turkey were transferred to the GNA. The debate as to the validity of Turkey's unilateral abolition of the Caliphate was taken up by other Muslim nations in order to decide whether they should confirm the Turkish action or appoint a new Caliph.[25] A "Caliphate Conference" was held in Cairo in May 1926 and a resolution was passed declaring the Caliphate "a necessity in Islam", but failed to implement this decision.[25] Two other Islamic conferences were held in Mecca (1926) and Jerusalem (1931), but failed to reach a consensus.[25] Turkey did not accept the re-establishment of the Caliphate and perceived it as an attack to its basic existence; while Mustafa Kemal and the reformists continued their own way.[27]

The removal of the Caliphate followed with an extensive effort to establish the separation of governmental and religious affairs. Education was the cornerstone in this effort. In 1923, there were three main horizontal educational institutions. The first and most common institution was medreses (local school) based on Arabic, the Qur'an and memorization. The second type of institution was idadî and sultanî which were the reformist schools of the Tanzimat era. The last group was the colleges and minority schools in foreign languages that used the latest teaching models in educating pupils. The old medrese education was modernized.[28] Mustafa Kemal changed the classical Islamic education with a vigorously promoted reconstruction of educational institutions along the line of an enlightened pragmatism.[28] Kemal linked educational reform to the liberation of the nation from dogma, which he believed was more important than the Turkish war of independence.

Today, our most important and most productive task is the national education [unification and modernization] affairs. We have to be successful in national education affairs and we shall be. The liberation of a nation is only achieved through this way."[29]

—Mustafa Kemal

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk

If we had a leader like this Khalistan would be achievable.

[HSD1]

lol, Kemal had the forces of the remnants of the turkish empire to play with and use. any decent sikh leader would have to start from the ground up. but the ideas of Kemal are very important to the future of the youth who believe in khalistan. so many of them are turning into fundamentalists or believe praying in their bedroom all day will make khalistan fall from the sky.

[dalsingh101]

In terms of one man having impact on and reforming his culture Ataturk has no parallel in modern times. Even the national script was changed from Arabic script to a European one.

[Mithar]

Kamel Ataturk was a good leader. But I don't know if that is the kind of leader we should think is the ideal of a Sikh leader. Ataturk was not religious at all as far as Islam is concearned. Sikhs need a leader who is a good combination of being religious (Gian plus Bhagti) and militant. Sikh leaders of olden times had these qualities. They were Bhagti valay Singhs. Without Bhagti all we have left is leaders like Amarjeet Singh, Aulakh, Simranjeet SIngh Mann, Bittu. These are not good examples of Sikh leadership.

I beleive Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawala was a good example of a Sikh leader. He had Giyan since he was head of Bhindrawala Sampradah, he had Bhagti, strict Amritvela, he was politically aware and he was not Hindu Phobic like modern Khalistani leaders despite the false propaganda by modern Khalistani leaders who try to portray Sant Bhindrawala as being an enemy of Hindus and Hinduism, even Hindus portray him as being Hindu phobic. Sant Bhindrawala is a very misunderstood man by both Khalistanis and anti-Khalistanis.

[dalsingh101]

I disagree, anyone who wants to be an effective leader of Sikhs in this age needs to bridge that gap between modern and traditional. I think one test criteria we should use is the persons ability to hold their own on the international political scene. How would they hold out in conferences? Can they inspire, communicate effectively to both Sikhs and the rest of the world. Could they hold their own againsts weasals like Tony Blair, could they openly debate with Obama without being totally overshadowed? These are things we need to develop and look for.

I love Sant ji but do not think he had these characteristics. He was on the right track though, he knew he had to communicate to the outside world but didn't have the language skills to do this. He also misunderstood the western mind and its general fear of religious people like him. He was simply a Sikh separatist to them. A Sikh Khomeini.

For me, the person who should be the leader of the Sikh army should be man like Sant ji. That will ensure the highest discipline. But politics - no. Leave that to more "khuusht" bunday. The average Panjabi would have rings run around him/her by the average naturally/inherently deceptive Europeon politician. The only person we ever produced that wasn't completely fooled by them was Maharajah Ranjit Singh!

[Guest]

Dalsingh veer you wrote:

He also misunderstood the western mind.

Can you clarify more on this by giving examples from sant ji interactions with western media/leaders?

[dalsingh101]

Dalsingh veer you wrote:

Can you clarify more on this by giving examples from sant ji interactions with western media/leaders?

There are two incidents that stick in my mind. One was the American CNN guy who openly asked him if he was a Sikh Khomeini (available on the net).

The other was with BBCs Mark Tully (I think it was him). Anyway, the guy seemed to have tuttied himself after meeting sant ji. This was the impression one got from his writing (which I haven't got as the majority of my old books are locked up in storage).

When I finally saw Tully in a documentary years later, I could understand why. Tully seemed to be quite a gentle, giddarh type of English man, the type that seem to have an inbuilt fear of virile, strong, confident foreigners.

My point is that the west DO NOT like militant, religiously motivated movements unless they are behind them (i.e. Mujahadeen in Afghanistan). From what I have seen over the years, their portrayal of people in such movements (and Sant ji is an example), is never fair or unbiased. They always transpose a good versus evil framework on such conflicts. And when it is an anti governement movement, they will only take the side of the "rebels", when they want to destroy or destabilise the government for whatever reason. In which case they will give sympathetic media portrayal and perhaps even secret military support. However, as they did not have any major concerns with the ruling Congress party at the time, the western media generally towed the line with the official government version of events.

[Mithar]

But DalSingh, why do you care about the west? or what the west wants? That last thing we need to care about is what is politically correct for the west. The west has its own culture and ideas of what a leader is, Muslims have their own ideas. Sikhs also have their own culture and ideas of what a leader is. I don't think that Sikhs need a leader like Tony Blair or Obama. We do not need politicians to be our leaders. Our tradition is different from theirs. Our criteria of what makes up a leader does not have to be the same as the west’s idea of what makes up a politician. Some smooth talking western politician is not my idea of a Sikh leader. We already have plenty of those. But currently we have no one like Sant Jarnail Singh Bindrawala.

[dalsingh101]

Mithar:

I get what your saying but globalisation means that leaders must be able to play a part in the global community. The other option is withdraw and do your own thing. I don't think this is feasible/possible in these days. I am talking in terms of economics, resources, education and development etc. We can't be like an Amish community on the global platform.

Where our homeland is, has become so red hot in terms of Afghanistan/Pakistan and the possiblity of nuclear weapons getting in the hands of kuttarh musalmaans, we simply can't live in a bubble. Besides if a theoretical Khalistan formed, I have no doubt it will be attacked by India/Pakistan.

You said:

Some smooth talking western politician is not my idea of a Sikh leader. We already have plenty of those.

I haven't seen any that don't end up making themselves like bewakoofs! Politics is essentially about manipulating the situation to ones own benefit (I mean on a national level here). We haven't had anyone who can do that effectively since Maharajah Ranjit Singh.

But currently we have no one like Sant Jarnail Singh Bindrawala

True but in my opinion, such a person needs to be head of the military. I don't think they are equipped to deal with global politics. Which we are compelled to be a part of. This is not something I am happy about but a reality.

Whether we like it or not we have to deal with other nations, including the currently dominating west. We have to learn to do this without being colonised or manipulated, which they are expert in. That is why we need a modern educated leader now.

[HSD1]

i think there has to be a seperation of politics, religion and military. and by this i dont mean a clean seperation, but that those in the army shouldnt interfere with the govt/takht, and they in turn should not oppose the army and give it what it needs. japan/israel are good examples. people mention sant ji as a great military/political leader but i disagree. he was outmaneuvered by his enemies who got him in the end. also, without khalistani general Shabeg Singh ji i seriously doubt Sant ji would have lasted long against the assault. his placement of the MG and sniper/rpg positions exacted a heavy toll on the commandos. we need specialists in their respective fields, who can command those underneath them, rather than a jack of all trades trying to keep everyone happy.

[dalsingh101]

we need specialists in their respective fields, who can command those underneath them, rather than a jack of all trades trying to keep everyone happy.

You hit the nail on the head. Different areas need different types of people. That is statehood. People have different skills and abilities. They all need to be utilised positively.

[Kaljug]

Turkey has lots of forces pushing pulling within. The army is the main bastion of secularism. They are loyal to the ideology of Ataturk, the Turkish reformer.

Fateh!

True, though Erdogan's Islamist AK Party is doing everything that it can to undermine the armed forces:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8159127.stm

They now blame the Muslim terrorist attacks on the secular judge and a newspaper critical of the rising Islamist policy in Turkey on some deep military conspiracy which involves everyone from mafia hitmen, army generals, intellectuals, and newspaper editors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7684578.stm

By the time the trial comes to end, whether the generals are convicted of planning a coup or not, Erdogan's Islamist party will use the suspicion that the trial generates to further their own Islamic agenda. The army will likely soon find itself in a position where they have no power to act in ordet to ensure that Turkey remains as the nation envisaged by Ataturk.

Regards,

K.