Stretching your point, the French should be perpetually in questioning mode of German "atrocities" (twice in the 20th century), the Americans should colour their interactions with Mexicans with cries of "remember the Alamo" and so on..Yes, it is only in the loony fringe that one finds responsibility being sought to be affixed on muslims for acts of (real and imagined) commission of muslim rulers - mainstream India has moved far ahead of that - they have deccided what is "pseudo" if you care to look....But a discussion on that will derail this thread..
I am beginning to understand what makes you fly off at a tangent and only bring up selective historical refernces without really knowing much about those examples. Actually the French still do remember those examples, and just like the British, or the Dutch, or the Poles, or the Greeks, they keep the memory alive. Historical trauma is maintained to keep in mind the possibility of similar trauma again in the future from the same aggressive mindsets - as motives for aggressions remain fairly constant across historical times. Your tactical brilliance shows up once again in smoothly declaring that acts of "muslim rulers" were solo ventures - with their followers/army/nobles/as well as neo-converts and general Muslim society in India not participating or benefiting from those "ruler" actions. You may scrupulously avoid actual history, but reality is far different from what your are trying to domatically project.
What is mainstream India for you, and how is it proved that such a mainstream India has moved on? Because Congress was returned massively electorally? If the Congress is defeated electorally massively in the future, will it prove that the mainstream has moved "back"? Or is it the deafening cacophony of similar dogmatic abuse on the media that is the mainstream? Even the "professional historians" whose words appear uncannily in your lips - actually are at great pain to portray "atrocious behaviour" by Islamists in India - purely as actions of "Turks/Turushkas".
It is because opinions like your's project carefully selected representations or interpretations of history, that possible actual actions by countries or forces are never foreseen by modern Indian regimes. Just like you, people were blanketly abusing any contrary opinion that pointed out Islamist behaviour in the past in times of crisis, before the events leading up to the Partition. Such whitewashing is prolific in JLN type of propaganda. Wonder of wonders, those oh-so-peaceful/only-Islamic-ruler-personal-atrocity Islamic society within India did not prevent local Ghazwas and genocides whenever opportunities arose. Wonder of wonders, which Islamic ruler of India led the riots in 1947! Should I be not wondering whether, such whitewashing of opinions are conscious or subconscious attempts at lulling future resistance to Islamist violence - by reconstructing an image which hides the potential for violence guided and recommended by theology?
Why is it that you are not referring to the role of Turkish regimes consistently throughout latter Islamist history, the British colonial period, and post-Independence - as far as the Indian subcontinent is concerned? The Ottomans invested quite a lot in rallying and mobilizing Indian Muslim factions on the issue of the Khilafat. More importantly this had quite an impact in then Afghanistan and north-western frontierland of British India. I raised the question about Turkey's actual role and impact within the Islamist world - post 1947 - and where it would concern India. No posts have been forthcoming. The projected hope that Turkish influence can help India in ME has to be based on something tangible. It shoudl take into consideration, limitations imposed on Turkey by its own interests and relationships to the Islamic world.
This is where my first concern would lie. Turkey has the potential to become an alternative ideal replacing TSP for the IM. But in iconification, the military enforced secularism (not democracy maintained) is likely to be forgotten, whereas Turkey's apparent military prowess/success in resisting "west" will be highlighted. Turkey will then become an alternative symbol of "Islamic reconquista" where TSP is seen as a failed or at best stalled project. Not only what symbols actually do on ground is important, but what people want to see in such symbols and use such symbols as rallying point - is also important.
The important thing (the only one from your post IMO) is this:
we need "hard data" - which has been unavailable so far on this thread. Let us see "hard data" on economic front , on the miliitary front, and on strategic scenarios.
Well there has been a lot of it in the thread, you perhaps have not been reading them..Re-encapsulating:
Not really. Those are fundamentally qualitative statements.
1. Turkey is a USD 794 billion economy, its per capital income therefore will be close to OECD standards..That by itself is reason enough for any mercantile initiative to start..
Per capita income is not enough to drive mercantile initiative. It depends on actual PPP and distribution of income. The rural economy of Turkey has worsened in recent years, and assumed to be partlly behind steady increase in support behind the Islamists. There is a tendency for outsiders to measure up Turkey from urban areas. There is a great deal of difference between rural and urban societies. In fact I have seen a steep gradient in Islamism when I stayed with rural folk.
2. It is the only "normal" country in the Middle East barring perhaps Israel - with a vibrant civil society, a diversified economy, a developed MIC and above all "no oil curse"..It makes engagement with Turkey and Turkish people/institutions a far greater "par for the course" exercise for anybody, including Indians than with any other country in the ME..
Once again a qualitative asessment about the society, based only on urban experience. From what I have seen, the future trend is going to be dominated by the countryside. Just as all those rosy assessemnts about Iran before the Islamist uprising, based on the tight control of the Army, and urban "liberalism" - led to patently false and fatal projections for the future of Iran. Military authoritarianism has a limited generational span. They are forced to recruit for the numbers, from general society. Over time, the military cannot remain ideologically strongly divergent from the real societal processes. Radical groups are on the rise within Turkey. We would not want businessmen like Hedley to come over and use entry into India for connecting up with Islamists here.
3. It is the only country barring the US to have leverage both in the Arab/Muslim street and the West - any "look West" policy initiative therefore would naturally have turkey as a key interlocutor..
Masaru has mentione dthis already - and I find it extremely illogical to claim using Turkish window to look into the West, when we have a far more direct route. Turkish influence on the EU is more as a nuisance value - that Turkey is an useful bastion against ME and Islamist incursion into Europe. The integration of the Turkish economy with that of EU is a distant dream as yet. The reistance to Turkish entry reveals how Turkish espousal of any Indian initiative is likely to be less favourably taken than if India moved alone with respect to EU. I am yet to see concrete and effective intervention by Turkey into Arab/Muslim street. Please do cite illustrative examples.
4. the Turkish MIC is a reaosnably robust one, and they have a long experience in operating western equipment..They have a lot of engagement with Israel too on the military sphere..As we induct more western equipment into our arsenal, the Turkish experience will be worth studying...While I dont know enough yet about specific platforms etc, there could be possibilities of cooperation as well in terms of R&D, joint exercises, production etc..
Military collaboration, and cooperation in R&D with respect to a country having a substantial Islamic population with steadily growing infuence of the rural clergy - is better avoided or kept superficial. Elements of surprise are crucial in giving military advantages - including tech. Unless India can ensure more info being abosrbed than given out - it becomes a risky project.
But really, the first one is the key one as far as India is concerned..A large economy integrating in various ways with EU (even withouit that membership) offers immense possibilities for an increasingly globalising economy like ours..Blue sky gazing, I can see possibilities of Indian software companies setting up centres in Turkey to service European clients from closer home - turkey has a similar setup of higher education with reaosnably good quality unis churning out grads who are younger and less expensive than the Eurpoean workforce..
This virtual integration needs some citation. Can you give comparative data? (not just absolute values but relative share in the EU transactions - should be available from the main EU data servers. Since the economic justifications are being quoted so strongly, I am sure you have already made some research on this.
So there is a lot to talk about with Turkey..I dont undertsand the repeated reference to OIC - that is not a strategic focus area at all - not for us, not for Turkey, and not for about 99% of OIC's members!
OIC is not important and important depending on the context. OIC is used to hide behind when individual Islamic nations do not want to appear as individually going against India - for example the consistent endoresement in the OIC of the TSP claims on "Kashmir". From Indian interests, we need to know whether ties with any Islamic country is going to help where it matters - neutralizing TSP, eliminating Jihad, stop cooperating and siding with PRC in its demands for territory from India - and so on. We dont want a situation where an Islamist dominated country takes advantage of trade/education/tech from India but hides behind OIC in going against Indian interests in the subcontinet.