Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

India likely to vote with U.S. on Iran in IAEA
India Defence ^

Posted on 09/17/2005 7:35:01 PM PDT by Abbas Razza Khan

India likely to vote with U.S. on Iran in IAEA URL: http://www.india-defence.com/reports/377 Date: 17/9/2005 Agency: The Hindu

India will vote with the United States, France, Britain and Germany in the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) board of governors if forced to make a choice on referring the question of Iran's nuclear intentions to the United Nations' Security Council.

Highly-placed South Block sources told The Hindu that such a decision to vote with the U.S. in a crunch situation was taken even before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went into a meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush in New York.

At this bilateral meeting Iran is said to have come up for discussion.

Backing off

According to reports from New York, it appears that the U.S. and the European Union "three" are backing off from asking the IAEA's board to refer Iran to the Security Council on September 19 itself.

The board is meeting in Vienna on Monday,

In such a scenario, where the E.U. "three" Foreign Ministers have had diplomatic contacts with the new Iranian leadership in New York, it appears that India will not immediately be called upon to vote one way or another in the IAEA board.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Germany; News/Current Events; Russia; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: allyindia; france; germany; india; iran; irannukes; nuclear; russia; unitedkingdom; unitednations; usa; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
Coincidently, this news report was released along with this very interesting intel report:

Indo-US nuclear deal off if India backs Iran in UN URL: http://www.india-defence.com/reports/379 Date: 17/9/2005 Source: NewsInsight

The US has privately conveyed to the Indian leadership that were India to support Iran in Monday’s IAEA board meeting so its case of NPT violation is not referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions, then America would withdraw from the ongoing New Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP), which would prominently and immediately hit the 18-July civilian nuclear agreement between the two countries.

Diplomatic sources said that while this was not directly stated to the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, in the US, it was indirectly conveyed to the foreign minister, Natwar Singh, to the Indian delegation, and to the ruling and opposition leadership within the country, but foreign office officials here are not wont to take the warning seriously, saying that America is posturing.

The NSSP that took off in January 2004 expands civilian nuclear, civilian space and high technology cooperation between India and the US, its first phase was completed with ISRO headquarters’ removal from the US commerce department’s entity list and enabling its subordinate entities to import low level dual use items without a license, and in between, Boeing Satellite Systems was permitted to jointly develop and market communications satellites with ISRO.

Significantly, the US also granted “presumption of approval” status to all dual use items not controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group for use in the “balance of plant” activities at nuclear facilities subject to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

As part of the NSSP protocol, prime minister Manmohan Singh and president George W.Bush signed a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement up for congressional ratification, and diplomats said the Congress would reject the accord in case India supports Iran’s clandestine weaponisation activity by supporting its position in the IAEA board meeting on 19 September.

While Indian voting won’t affect the almost certain outcome against Iran in the IAEA meeting, US policymakers fear that the presumed UN Security Council sanctions won’t be effective if India maintains good relations with Iran, because Iran can survive regionally, and the US continuance in Pakistan would become untenable.

With Russia and China backing Iran, it cannot survive the sanctions, diplomats said, but India is closer, and Indian support would certainly crumble Pakistani resistance to the Iranian regime, and General Parvez Musharraf would have to capitulate to domestic pressure to come to that country’s aid and assistance.

1 posted on 09/17/2005 7:35:02 PM PDT by Abbas Razza Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Abbas Razza Khan

Links to the original articles:

India likely to vote with U.S. on Iran in IAEA
URL: http://www.india-defence.com/reports/377

Indo-US nuclear deal off if India backs Iran in UN
URL: http://www.india-defence.com/reports/379


2 posted on 09/17/2005 7:37:09 PM PDT by Abbas Razza Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abbas Razza Khan
I don't believe it. India needs the pipeline, it wants to assert an "independent foreign policy," and it needs Shia Iran's moral support to counterbalance Sunni jihadis in Kashmir. Not to mention the cultural links between the two. The Indian elites spoke Farsi until the rise of the British Raj. While India may back us up if we apply the screws tight enough, I think it's unlikely, and it's one reason why we've delayed the referral issue.
3 posted on 09/17/2005 7:42:00 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abbas Razza Khan

Let's make sure the U.N. passes alot of resolutions that won't be enforced so that the Iranians have plenty of time to acquire nukes in the interim. The stupidity of international diplomacy continues to amaze me. Foggy Bottom is a prime example of the difference between intelligence and common sense. The latter is a scarce commodity.


4 posted on 09/17/2005 7:47:19 PM PDT by peyton randolph (Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

No Indian 'elites' ever spoke Farsi..They speak HINDU.


5 posted on 09/17/2005 7:49:31 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

You need to get an education.


6 posted on 09/17/2005 7:50:36 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

perhaps..tell me the difference between Sanskrit and Farsi..


7 posted on 09/17/2005 7:52:59 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

India can deal with a Shia Iran even after the proposed regime change, can't we?


8 posted on 09/17/2005 7:57:02 PM PDT by Abbas Razza Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

One is the ancient language of the Aryans who conquered the subcontinent, and one is the ancient language of the Aryans who conquered its adjacent plateau. Now, go read up on the Moghul Empire and Farsi before you play with the big kids.


9 posted on 09/17/2005 7:57:24 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Abbas Razza Khan
Lol true enough, but if we decide to go that route, we aren't going to need (or get) U.N. Security Council approval, so it's a moot point anyway.
10 posted on 09/17/2005 7:58:36 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

Go brush off your hubris before u 'play' with real women. U sound foolish and proud, not to mention ignorant. Care to provided a link for my 'research' into your ignorance?


11 posted on 09/17/2005 8:05:25 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

It's not hubris, it's just disdain for people who assert "facts" that are blatantly wrong. You want a link? Google Moghul and Farsi, and learn.


12 posted on 09/17/2005 8:12:33 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

Disdain? LOL..and u r not full of hubris? U r the one that is claiming to be a know it all and u don't. Simple really. Go 'google' Farsi and Sanskrit...LOL


13 posted on 09/17/2005 8:19:52 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

I never claimed to know it all, I simply said that Indian elites spoke Farsi. And they did. You claimed otherwise. And you're wrong. End of matter, good day, hope you learned something from the experience. Please don't reply with some insipid ad hominem until you can prove that Indian elites didn't speak Farsi.


14 posted on 09/17/2005 8:23:35 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

Those Elites who spoke farsi have long died . India understands that its future as a power lies with America .They will do the right thing.


15 posted on 09/17/2005 8:29:32 PM PDT by Milwaukeeprophet (Neo and proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

Indian 'elites' r Hindu my friend. U seem confused, so let me spell it out to u.
83% of the 800 million people of India are Hindus. Around 11% Muslims, over 2% Christians, just under 2% Sikhs, Buddhists surprisingly less than 1%, Jains 0.5% and the rest (Parsees, Jews etc) less than 1%.

Hinduism

Hindu religious literature was produced in successive periods of history, the earliest of which was the Vedic period between 2500, BC to 600 BC. It was during this time when the Sanskrit speaking, blond hair and blue eyed people the Aryans, wrote the four VEDAS or books of knowledge. u seem confused.. Farsi is a Persian language from Iran, Afghanistan and other stans...Sanskrit is the language of Hindus and the derivative of the Aryans.


16 posted on 09/17/2005 8:32:16 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire
Do you know anything at all about Indian history? Indian elites for several centuries were Muslim and spoke Farsi. But their religion is irrelevant. Even educated Hindus spoke Farsi during the Moghul era. Please, please get an education before you talk about things you don't know. A little knowledge really is a dangerous thing in your case.
17 posted on 09/17/2005 8:43:48 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

still no links where i can study your stupidity or review mine? LOL...


18 posted on 09/17/2005 8:47:28 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire
Like I said, Google it. If you really are so ignorant of Indian history that you don't know practically anything about the Moghul era, a few internet links aren't going to help you, and you have no business posting in this thread. I don't want to sound cruel, but that's the truth.
19 posted on 09/17/2005 8:49:45 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

No problem..your bad, not mine..lol:

The first group to invade India were the Aryans, who came out of the north in about 1500 BC. The Aryans brought with them strong cultural traditions that, miraculously, still remain in force today. They spoke and wrote in a language called Sanskrit, which was later used in the first documentation of the Vedas. Though warriors and conquerors, the Aryans lived alongside Indus, introducing them to the caste system and establishing the basis of the Indian religions. The Aryans inhabited the northern regions for about 700 years, then moved further south and east when they developed iron tools and weapons. They eventually settled the Ganges valley and built large kingdoms throughout much of northern India.

The second great invasion into India occurred around 500 BC, when the Persian kings Cyrus and Darius, pushing their empire eastward, conquered the ever-prized Indus Valley. Compared to the Aryans, the Persian influence was marginal, perhaps because they were only able to occupy the region for a relatively brief period of about 150 years. The Persians were in turn conquered by the Greeks under Alexander the Great, who swept through the country as far as the Beas River, where he defeated king Porus and an army of 200 elephants in 326 BC. The tireless, charismatic conqueror wanted to extend his empire even further eastward, but his own troops (undoubtedly exhausted) refused to continue. Alexander returned home, leaving behind garrisons to keep the trade routes open."

What r we arguing about again?


20 posted on 09/17/2005 9:01:38 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

You are arguing with me because of your extreme ignorance of the Moghul Era, when Indian notables spoke Farsi.


21 posted on 09/17/2005 9:17:05 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

and u r arguing with me due to your 'extreme' ignorance of India,the history,the language, the religion. Even though I have slapped u down three or four times..u still persist...lol. AS General Honore might say: Are You Stuck on Stupid? Now u have changed the whole premise of your argument by implying we were arguing over Indian 'notables' in history that spoke Farsi...lol..I am telling U..that INDIAN 'ELITES' NEVER SPOKE FARSI..THEY SPEAK HINDU..A DERIVATIVE OF SANSKRIT..handen down by the Aryan 'invaders'. U are stuck on the stupid on stupid and the Moghul 'invasion' which came a century or so after.


22 posted on 09/17/2005 9:25:31 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Abbas Razza Khan; Gengis Khan

<< India likely to vote with U.S. on Iran in IAEA >>

If that is true it will be a welcome move in the right direction.

But there's still a very very very long way to go given India's track record of having, for almost sixty years, in international forums, including at the UN, voted more than 80% of the time against America's interests.

We live in prayer -- and hope.

Blessings -- Brian


23 posted on 09/17/2005 9:44:51 PM PDT by Brian Allen (Per Ardua ad Astra!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

Interestingly 'Farsi' as word in hindi language is used to connotate something which cant be generally understood. Similar to the use of word 'Greek' in English language (Eg. What you say is all greek to me)

I dont know where you come from, but alognwith poor knowledge you have a bad attitude as well, lethal combination ;)


24 posted on 09/17/2005 9:50:19 PM PDT by SlamIslam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

During Mughal (thats how it ougth to be spelled) era Farsi was a language for literature (official variety) for writing biographies and chronicles, commoners spoke hindi (though in a very different form than today), the court language (official language for official records, judiciary etc..) was Urdu, a cross of Farsi and Hindi.

Might sound funny but the elites always try to speak a language people dont understand, probably thats what makes them elite.


25 posted on 09/17/2005 9:56:26 PM PDT by SlamIslam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

During Mughal (thats how it ougth to be spelled) era Farsi was a language for literature (official variety) for writing biographies and chronicles, commoners spoke hindi (though in a very different form than today), the court language (official language for official records, judiciary etc..) was Urdu, a cross of Farsi and Hindi.

Might sound funny but the elites always try to speak a language people dont understand, probably thats what makes them elite.


26 posted on 09/17/2005 9:57:47 PM PDT by SlamIslam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul
Indian elites during the Mughal era spoke Urdu, which is a mix of Hindi, Arabic/Islamic influenced Persian(thus, not Farsi), Arabic, and Turkic. Mughal empire had impact on the Muslims of India than on Hindus.

Most Muslim elites of India are Mughal descendents(and ethnically Afghanis) and have surname like Khan. Hindu elites, on the otherhand, are Aryan descendents.

Interestingly, both have the genetic marker R1a, which is found in India, Central Asia, and in Black Sea countries like Urkraine and Poland. Vikings and Norsemen also bore that marker.

Kurgan hypothesis says that IndoEuropeans migrated from their homeland around the Black Sea to south to Iran and India(Aryans). They would also migrate to west to become Greeks and Italic tribes. Later, they migrated to North and West to become Vikings and Norsemen, and so on. Well, that is the mainstream stuff.

27 posted on 09/17/2005 9:58:22 PM PDT by sagar (Straight trees are cut first and honest people are screwed first_ Chanakya, 4th c. BC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but you're very stupid and don't belong on Free Republic. Please at least do a better job of pretending to know what you're talking about before you troll. Good bye.


28 posted on 09/18/2005 3:49:46 AM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki; Cronos; CarrotAndStick; razoroccam; Arjun; samsonite; Bombay Bloke; mindfever; ...
<< India likely to vote with U.S. on Iran in IAEA >>

If that is true it will be a welcome move in the right direction.

But there's still a very very very long way to go given India's track record of having, for almost sixty years, in international forums, including at the UN, voted more than 80% of the time against America's interests.

We live in prayer -- and hope.
 
Brian, thanks for the ping.
 
However I am going to have to disagree with you here. I am sorry whatever I am about say might anger a lot of people here, most here at FR would disagree with me but I would like you to know that this is how India thinks.
 
America's demand that we strike off relation with Iran is unfair, unjustified and undeserving. It (US) is asking for too much of a price for friendship with India. I am afraid India is unlikely to give into such silly demands. This is not how "India" functions. We are not Pakistan to switch sides and ditch ol' time allies overnight to derive material gains from US (as the Pakistanis did with Taliban). India is no client state of the US and we dont intend to be one if thats your idea of an "alliance". Washington does not make decisions on our foreign policy. I am sorry we do not give into this kind of arm twisting.
 
Iran is a great friend of India and we have excellent relation with Iran. Iran is also among the only true ally we have in the Islamic world. It would be a very sad day to see India voting against Iran (even when they have been a good friend of our) only to please our American suitors. Notwithstanding America's (HRWOT) hollow rhetorical war on terrorism such "you are either with us or with the terrorists" the US itself chooses to keep allies like Pakistan that has broken every law in the book (and Saudi Arabia) and asks of us to give up on Iran. US wanting India to join the "US lead international bandwagon" to tighten the screws on Iran to make it back down from Nuclear fuel processing does not make for a very convincing case to Indian ears as long as US grants billions of dollars of military and monetary aid and advance weaponry to Pakistan which virtually ran an international nuclear walmart and Iran itself being among its list of prime beneficiary.
 
India has no moral right to advise Iran not to build nuclear weapons when we(India) ourselves have violated the norms of NPT and went on to built the bomb.The Iranians essentially hold the same position on NPT (that its an unfair and discriminatory regime aimed at creating and maintaining a divide between the haves and have-nots) that we held for so long. It seems our spineless Congress government is ready to bend over backwards to please the US government even as the US itself is neither ready nor willing to concede anything in favour of India. The US has so far only dangled the "nuclear technology" carrot (which is facing stiff opposition in the US Senate and seems unlikely to be ratified) and moreover its not ready to support India's bid for a permanent seat at the UN as it does incase of Japan. Incase of Kashmir issue (the less said the better), the US is outrightly helping Pakistan as Condoleezza Rice calls on Dr. Singh to accept more of Pakistani demands. And its for this reason the (otherwise pro-US) BJP and NDA alliance is now against the Indo-US deal, the leftist are already against the US and that leaves the Congress. Should American arm twisting continue then I doubt there would be any Indian political party left supporting the US. In my opinion, if India is not in a position to vote in favour of Iran then we must abstain, but definitely no vote in favour of US. Not unless the US is ready to accept our demands.
 
Brian, we never voted for (or against) American interests but only in favour of Indian interests and thats how it will remain for the next 60 years.
 
 
 
 
Indo-US Issues Ping.
Freepmail me if you want on/off.

29 posted on 09/18/2005 4:19:30 AM PDT by Gengis Khan (Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until u hear them speak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

Point taken.

My issue is with the broad use of the word 'elite'. In the provinces and the princely states of pre-brit India, most royal families that were hindu, even under Mughal dominion, spoke the regional tongue - A sanksritized local dialect in most cases - precursorsa to today's Idian languages like Marathi, Tamil, Bengali or even, Hindi.

The only 'elite' who might've stubbornly stuck with farsi or tom-tommed its supposed superiority over Sanskrit based language would be the original mughal invaders 9babar and his ilk) who'd invaded out of Persia and central Asia. These invading marauders - who later established the mughal dynsaty in delhi were a small proportion of India's social elite, as it was, even then.


30 posted on 09/18/2005 7:19:51 AM PDT by voletti (The meaning of life, the universe and everything...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: voletti
Your point is taken as well.

Certainly, one should avoid inferring from what I said that all Indian notables spoke Farsi, but the fact does remain that it was one of the court languages, and many educated Moghuls prided themselves on their ability to compose Farsi poetry, etc. It's similar to how, until about a century ago, few Western elites would consider themselves truly educated until they had at least some familiarity with Greek and Roman.

The crux of my comment was that there are certain cultural links between the two nations that aren't easily grasped simply by a surface analysis of "Iran is Muslim and Persian, India is Hindu and Indian."
31 posted on 09/18/2005 8:39:15 AM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

Exactly. The word 'Iran' itself is another for 'Aryan', which is a Sanskrit word. A lot of people fail to see that Iran isn't an Arab nation. And a lot more are unaware how unpopular the mad mullahs really are in Iran itself, among the youth of Iran. In fact, many are


32 posted on 09/18/2005 9:09:31 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

... here to attest to that on FR itself, risking their lives to post on FR, from Iran!!!


33 posted on 09/18/2005 9:11:36 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan
Unfortunately Gengis, you are wrong on four critical issues:

1. Iran is not a friend of India. Start with Nadir Shah, through the Shah of Iran (who gave money to Pakistan) to present day Iran (which pressures India every time a Muslim in India, even a terrorist, sneezes)

2. Iran was and is a signatory to the NPT, India is not. Therefore, India's building the bomb was not breaking the rules of NPT. Iran would be breaking the NPT regulations.

3. You cannot equate Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons to that of India. Iran has offered nuclear technology to all Muslim countries. How often has India offered to share its nuclear knowhow?

4. India is being short sighted about the gas pipeline. How long would gas from Iran take care of India's needs? And how easily would it be held hostage to upheavals in Pakistan and Iran? In contrast, nuclear plants offered by US would help India without having to rely on unstable supply issues. As long as it doesn't piss off Australia (i.e. they can keep winning cricket matches, but with the team we have, that should be no problem)
34 posted on 09/18/2005 10:36:49 AM PDT by razoroccam (Then in the name of Allah, they will let loose the Germs of War (http://www.booksurge.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Abbas Razza Khan

I think the present US administration in general and Indians as a whole have become more pragmatic and less idealistic over these things.

The days when Indians thought US should have supported India because it was a democracy (naive werent they) is over. Same thing for Americans who couldnt understand why a democracy would be close the Soviet Union (naive too here).

I think the current relationship is more robust because it is based on self interest and not ideals. Ideals are all good but when self interest comes into the picture they are very quickly dicarded by one and all.

So I have more hope for India - US relationship now than before, just because it is in both India and USA to be friendly to each other.

It doesnt mean all irritants will vanish they will be around but they will be "managed", by the old method carrots and sticks.

Remember though US is much more richer/powerful than India, India has a lot of carrots and might have a few sticks too. If India did not have the carrots US would not be interested in a relationship with Democracy or not.


35 posted on 09/18/2005 10:57:29 AM PDT by ulmo3 (I don't want to be immortal through my work I want to be immortal by not dying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire; Lejes Rimul

lol that was way too funny.

Lejes Indians did nto speak Farsi they spoke Urdu which is different from Farsi or Persian. Urdu is a mixture of Hindi and Persian. Urdu literally means "camp language" it was a way for the Muslim and Hindu soliders to communicate.

So though Urdu has the same script has Farsi or Persian it has some words which are from Hindi (Prakrit to be exact which was the ancient version of Hindi).

Penelopesire Hindi comes from Sanskrit just like English is derived from Latin (am i correct, if I am wrong correct me) is more closer to Sanskrit than English is to Latin.
Same script


36 posted on 09/18/2005 11:00:23 AM PDT by ulmo3 (I don't want to be immortal through my work I want to be immortal by not dying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

Aryans werent blue and blond eyed (that was Hitlers version). Aryans were people from central asia who migrated east to India and west to Europe.

The ones in India became brown eyed and black haired while the ones in Europe decided to be more colorful and thus became colored :)


37 posted on 09/18/2005 11:02:30 AM PDT by ulmo3 (I don't want to be immortal through my work I want to be immortal by not dying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

We are not signatories to NPT so we cannot violate NPT when we never agreed to it in the first place


38 posted on 09/18/2005 11:05:05 AM PDT by ulmo3 (I don't want to be immortal through my work I want to be immortal by not dying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4485523.stm

India's Iranian cafes fading out

By Jayshree Bajoria
BBC News, Mumbai



Many of the cafes have shut up shop due to competition
The Iranian cafes in the western Indian city of Mumbai (formerly Bombay) have long stood out from other city eateries - but their days could be numbered.

With their red and white checked tablecloths, straight backed wooden chairs and the aroma of freshly baked bread and sweet cake, the cafes are an indelible part of Mumbai's cosmopolitan heritage.

But all this may well become a thing of the past.

Having withstood a century of change, the cafes are feeling the heat in Mumbai's fiercely competitive food market.

Many of the so-called Irani cafes are getting a complete makeover and becoming pubs or restaurants. Others are simply shutting up shop.


And so it goes. Increasing prosperity wipes out a landmark institution.


39 posted on 09/18/2005 11:10:12 AM PDT by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul; penelopesire; Milwaukeeprophet; SlamIslam; sagar; voletti; CarrotAndStick
This is for all of you.

Lejes Rimul is correct. Indian elites spoke Farsi and we did so FOR AT LEAST A THOUSAND YEARS! We Indians "officially" spoke in Farsi since the invasion of Mahamud Ghori and till the reign of the last Mughal Emperor of India (Bahadur Shah Zafar) who was deported to Burma by the British. And NO, Urdu was NEVER the official language in the court of Delhi. (It was the official language in the court of Nawab Ali Wardi Khan, Nawab of Lucknow).

Guys, we are missing a very important chapter of our history here. While the general masses of India spoke in derivatives of Hindi/Hindustani/Urdu or other native vernaculars depending on the geographical region, "official" India under Delhi without exception always spoke in Farsi and did so for a thousand years until it was replaced by English by the British. The Mughal Empire had ALL it official documents called "farmans" printed in Farsi. Every single text engraved on the walls of historical monuments of the time were written in Farsi. The great poet Amir Khusro wrote poetry and couplets in Farsi roughly a few centuries after Omer Khyiayam of Persia. Urdu was a far more recent language by comparison. The Hindustani language commonly spoken in northern India and Pakistan derives 70% of the words from Farsi and remaining from Sanskrit. Not just the Islamic rulers but also Rajputs, Jats, Dogras, Marathas and Sikhs officially used Farsi inside court rooms (as we do with English now).

In fact Mughal Emperors were very much recent invaders considering the time-line of Indian history. Muslims rule over northan India had already been well established for hundreds of years before the Mughals who were the decendents of the Mongol warriors. Babur was the decendent of Tamerlane from maternal side and decendent of (yours truly) Gengis Khan from father's side. (Don't argue with me on this).

Modern India has completely forgotten Farsi and like Sanskrit, its today a dead language and not spoken by anybody in India. English has replaced Farsi as the language of the elites. Modern version of Hindi has about 60% words of Farsi (along with Arabic and turkic) and remaining is Sanskrit. Hindi today is the descendant of Sanskrit and Farsi.

One last thing.......ancient India, before the arrival of Islam (i.e during the Vedic era and there after during the Buddhist era) Sanskrit was only the official language. It was never commonly spoken. Prakrit was always the spoken version of Sanskrit for the commoners. Sanskrit was for the elite Brahmans. Under Buddhist era the commonly spoken language was Pali and Ardha Maghadhi.

The ancient language of Persia was Zend Avestan.

PS: None of the historical ties have anything to do with the present Indo-Iranian relation.

Cheers,
40 posted on 09/18/2005 12:25:18 PM PDT by Gengis Khan (Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until u hear them speak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan; razoroccam
Don't give in to U.S. pressure on Iran: Karat - Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Prakash Karat on Friday said India-Iran relations could not be held hostage to the United States. He asked the United Progressive Alliance Government to act in India's interest and pursue an independent foreign policy. "The UPA Government should not be stampeded into taking any stand against Iran which will undo the work done in recent years to establish close ties with Iran."
Will India side with Red Jihad against America? I think we already know the answer.
41 posted on 09/18/2005 12:43:53 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe (Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan; razoroccam

"India can trust us to protect their peace pipe to Iran. Really."

42 posted on 09/18/2005 12:50:52 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe (Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

I agree, history has no significance in this context, there is no hidden hostorical/cultural pact.
Even british records (for land and revenue purpose) were kept in Urdu. The system was introduced during Akhbar's (Mughal emperor) reign, the chief architect of the notarial system being Raja Todar Mal a hindu in his court.


43 posted on 09/18/2005 12:52:43 PM PDT by SlamIslam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: razoroccam; ulmo3
Unfortunately Gengis, you are wrong on four critical issues:

1. Iran is not a friend of India. Start with Nadir Shah, through the Shah of Iran (who gave money to Pakistan) to present day Iran (which pressures India every time a Muslim in India, even a terrorist, sneezes)
 
That is pretty much the case with all the Muslim countries. Forget Nadir Shah or the Shah of Iran, you seem to forget a more recent events where India and Iran worked together to take out the Pakistan based Taliban. Even today most of our logistical supplies to Afghanistan passes through Iran because of Pakistans refusal to grant India transit. Dont forget that it was Iran that had opposed the Kashmir resolution mooted by Benazir Bhutto who had the backing of the entire OIC. It was Iran that stalled the resolution.

2. Iran was and is a signatory to the NPT, India is not. Therefore, India's building the bomb was not breaking the rules of NPT. Iran would be breaking the NPT regulations.
 
As far as India is concerned, we do not recognise the NPT and as a result, to us it doesnt matter who violates the rules of NPT. My point was the India cannot act as the NPT police when we ourselves do not recognise or ratify the laws laid down by the regime. When we have neither recognised nor ratified NPT, the question of India censuring Iran for violating NPT does not arise.

3. You cannot equate Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons to that of India. Iran has offered nuclear technology to all Muslim countries. How often has India offered to share its nuclear knowhow?
 
Iran is definitely at fault on that count (and many more) but if the world (read America) has no problem with Pakistan already having passed on Nuclear technology to much of the Islamic world, then we (India) should not be complaining too much about Iranian nuclear technology.
 
Iran is definately on the wrong side. I am not justifying the case for Iran. My point is that we (India) refuse to be dragged into the arena, to further what is essentially America's agenda for the region. We have our own interest to look after.

4. India is being short sighted about the gas pipeline. How long would gas from Iran take care of India's needs? And how easily would it be held hostage to upheavals in Pakistan and Iran? In contrast, nuclear plants offered by US would help India without having to rely on unstable supply issues. As long as it doesn't piss off Australia (i.e. they can keep winning cricket matches, but with the team we have, that should be no problem)
Would US guaranty uninterrupted supplies of nuclear fuel in the event of military standoff/conflict with Pakistan or in the event of India carry out another series of nuclear tests? I dont know how exactly nuclear energy can replace hydrocarbons. We will still need oil from somewhere......... anywhere. Be it Iran.

44 posted on 09/18/2005 1:13:43 PM PDT by Gengis Khan (Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until u hear them speak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ulmo3

Post #40 is for you too.


45 posted on 09/18/2005 1:15:44 PM PDT by Gengis Khan (Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until u hear them speak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

The Iranian leaders shout for the destruction of Israel and the USA. It's up to you and India. Either join us, or join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and its military adjuncts. We in the USA will not continue to feed technology through India to evil regimes, each of which wants to eventually be the prevailing empire.

And contrary to propaganda in some small "elite" British circles (especially some businessmen) that we, as they, entertain desires of "empire," we certainly do not. If India would rather fight it out later with its preferred friends in the east (the mullahs, for example) for a chance at ruling the world, that's her business. We can let that happen, with the exception, of course, that no other nation will antagonistically touch countries like Taiwan, Australia, Japan, New Zealand or other of our Pacific Rim allies without paying a miserable price.

Russia will equip Iranian Submarines with Missiles
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437370/posts

US TOLD TO LEAVE CENTRAL ASIA [Russia & China demand "deadline."]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437369/posts

Defector: China's 'enemy' is U.S. - (very serious predicament we're in with Chicoms)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435132/posts

CIS military exercise taking place in Russia
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050624/40757551.html

Russia will preserve its positions in Iran under any president
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430361/posts

Russia, N.Korea, China give Iran missile aid -CIA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/519198/posts

China, Russia, Iran and our next move (2/10/02)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/626057/posts

Germany warns Russia over missile sales to Iran (2/19/02)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/631377/posts

Russia to hold military drills with China:1st time in more than 30 years
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/674268/posts

US accuses Russia and China over North Korea bomb (10/19/02)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/772101/posts

China, Russia and Central Asia unite against US missile shield
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b29ebac7e95.htm

Red China and Russia unite to create New World Order says communist
newspaper (6/18/01)
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2e42bd0629.htm

CIA: Russia, China working on information warfare (6/21/01)
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b32d9f412df.htm

US blasts Russia, China for opposition to Iraq sanctions plan (6/26/01)
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b38e03721e5.htm

Russia, China sign historic friendship treaty (7/16/01)
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b533a696e56.htm

China ‘ready to use N-weapons against US’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1443054/posts

Orthodox Church Says Western Human Rights Don’t Suit Russia
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437110/posts


46 posted on 09/18/2005 1:24:45 PM PDT by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe; razoroccam
Will India side with Red Jihad against America? I think we already know the answer.
 
Nope, actually you dont. Nobody in India cares what the CPI(M) has to say (at least on foreign affairs). There is and has always been a consensus as far as Indian foreign policy is concerned. What the CPI(M) says does not matter, they dont call the shots.

47 posted on 09/18/2005 1:30:44 PM PDT by Gengis Khan (Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until u hear them speak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

Maybe so, but you seem to agree with them in this case. Maybe you should ask yourself why these traitors to India are saying the same thing you are.


48 posted on 09/18/2005 1:32:21 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe (Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: familyop
I think for some reason you have got me all wrong.
 
India do not support Iran for anything. For us Iran does not matter. My point is that US is asking for too high a price for whatever little it is willing to offer by way of "alliance".
 
The Iranian leaders shout for the destruction of Israel and the USA.
 
Not very different from Mushy threatening to use nuke against India and moreover they do have the means unlike Iran. That however never seems to be much of a concern for the US.
 
India do not support Iran for anything. For us Iran does not matter. My point is that US is asking for too high a price for whatever it is willing to offer by way of "alliance".
 
It's up to you and India. Either join us, or join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and its military adjuncts. We in the USA will not continue to feed technology through India to evil regimes, each of which wants to eventually be the prevailing empire.

And contrary to propaganda in some small "elite" British circles (especially some businessmen) that we, as they, entertain desires of "empire," we certainly do not. If India would rather fight it out later with its preferred friends in the east (the mullahs, for example) for a chance at ruling the world, that's her business. We can let that happen, with the exception, of course, that no other nation will antagonistically touch countries like Taiwan, Australia, Japan, New Zealand or other of our Pacific Rim allies without paying a miserable price.
 
None of all that you are saying has anything to do with the point I am trying to make. We have been fighting terrorism for far longer than you have been. Its for you to join us after you have abandoned allies like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

49 posted on 09/18/2005 1:52:16 PM PDT by Gengis Khan (Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until u hear them speak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

The right-wing BJP (considered pro-US until now) are also saying the same thing as I am.


50 posted on 09/18/2005 1:55:21 PM PDT by Gengis Khan (Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until u hear them speak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson