What's new

India changed its vote at U.N. for some other reason: Iran

Nov 17, 2010
3,404
-27
3,879
Country
India
Location
United States
India changed its vote at U.N. for some other reason: Iran

Describing the English translation of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as “weak,” Iranian officials say India should not have changed its vote for this reason alone at a recent meeting of the United Nations committee on human rights.

India took umbrage at the mention of Kashmir as a “nation” by the Iranian leader twice in six months and once by a Foreign Ministry official, and served a demarche each time on Iran.

Indian officials later said the Iran's mention of Kashmir as a nation was crucial in India changing its decision at the U.N. panel meeting. In the past, India had voted “no” when a West-sponsored resolution condemning Iran for rights abuses came up annually at the U.N. But this time, New Delhi abstained from voting.

“It is unfortunate but not unusual because the main text in Farsi was totally different from the English translation,” Iranian officials said, admitting that the rendition from Farsi on the web site of the Supreme Leader was “weak.”

“There were many differences when the English version gets compared with the original in Farsi. We admit accurate translation is very important. And it was not. On this basis, we asked India not to change its vote but we couldn't convince the [Indian] officials. That is why we believe that the mention of Kashmir as a nation in the translation might not be the main reason for India changing its stance,” the officials said.

The officials noted that India's changed stance was not highlighted in the Iranian media.

“In Iran, it was not published in all newspapers though it did appear on some web sites. Otherwise, it would have created a problem in managing public opinion.”

Due deliberation

However, that doesn't explain why no effort was made to correct the translation the first time it appeared in June, again a few months later, and finally this month. On both occasions, India served demarches on Iran. “There have been three such instances between June and November. There was this strain of opinion coming forth from Iran. So after due deliberation, the government decided to vote the way it did,” Indian officials said.

Mr. Khamenei had said: “The major duties of the elite of the Islamic Ummah is to provide help to the Palestinian nation and the besieged people of Gaza, to sympathise [with] and provide assistance to the nations of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Kashmir, to engage in struggle and resistance against the aggressions of the United States and the Zionist regime.”

Ties to be unaffected

Iranian officials explained that the word used in the Farsi original was ‘millat,' which was totally different from nation in the political sense. Had the Iranian intention been to question India's sovereignty over Kashmir, it would have used ‘kishwar' or ‘hakimiyat.'

However, despite this difference of perception between the two countries, officials from both sides maintained that bilateral ties would remain unaffected. The Indian officials said they attached “high priority” to ties with Iran.

High-level exchanges

They pointed to the regular high-level exchanges over the past one year and the continuing talks on several projects of strategic value. Iranian officials also make the same point, although they complain that there has been no action on several Memoranda of Understanding signed between the two countries. “India has adopted a wait-and-watch policy,” they feel.

The Hindu : News / National : India changed its vote at U.N. for some other reason: Iran
 
Iran would definitely not like to alienate another friendly country and that too one which is now going to take part in UNSC for the next two years.
 
I knew that some kind of clarification is going to come regarding Ayatollah's comment on Kashmir, but I don't understand why Iran is behaving the way it is behaving of late and loosing friends fast.
 
“Even a powerful country like India was threatened by the US Ambassador, David Mulford, who publicly declared in January 2006 that there would be no US–India nuclear deal if India did not vote against Iran in the Board. Stephen Rademaker, the then Assistant Secretary for Non-Proliferation and Global Security, boasted a year later in a public meeting that India 's vote was coerced by the US.”
 
“Even a powerful country like India was threatened by the US Ambassador, David Mulford, who publicly declared in January 2006 that there would be no US–India nuclear deal if India did not vote against Iran in the Board. Stephen Rademaker, the then Assistant Secretary for Non-Proliferation and Global Security, boasted a year later in a public meeting that India 's vote was coerced by the US.”

And now that the nuke deal is done. We can get back to having a sovereign foreign policy.

BTW, we are going to be on the UNSC for the next two years. I don't think Iran can and will like to alienate a country that could potentially work to its interests.
 
Ties to be unaffected

Iranian officials explained that the word used in the Farsi original was ‘millat,' which was totally different from nation in the political sense. Had the Iranian intention been to question India's sovereignty over Kashmir, it would have used ‘kishwar' or ‘hakimiyat.'

However, despite this difference of perception between the two countries, officials from both sides maintained that bilateral ties would remain unaffected. The Indian officials said they attached “high priority” to ties with Iran.

So basically these threads go down the sewer and I think the Pakistani members would like to retract the Thanks they profusely offered to Iran just some time back:lol:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/80734-support-kashmir-says-khamenei.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/81116-friend-iran-calls-india-zionist-regime.html

I am loving it !!!!
 
CaptainJackSparrow said:
Iranian officials explained that the word used in the Farsi original was ‘millat,' which was totally different from nation in the political sense. Had the Iranian intention been to question India's sovereignty over Kashmir, it would have used ‘kishwar' or ‘hakimiyat.'

Can any Farsi speaking member throw more light on this (and tell us the actual meanings too) ?
 
So basically these threads go down the sewer and I think the Pakistani members would like to retract the Thanks they profusely offered to Iran just some time back:lol:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/80734-support-kashmir-says-khamenei.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/81116-friend-iran-calls-india-zionist-regime.html

I am loving it !!!!

You seem to be completely mistaken machha

The obvious replies will be like diplomacy at its best etc but the holy regime has awakened to the zionist friends evil schemes and will seek retribution etc etc :D wait and enjoy
 
Millat means community as far as I know.

Hakimiyat is probably same as Hukumat.

Whatever, Iran needs to know where we stand. I belive it is in Irans good interests to keep India in it s good books as days, and years and eons go by .India is a good investment, India is like wine for its friends, the longer it matures the better it is going to be. I think friendship with Iran should be top priority, Iran is an important member of the world community. The problem I think with most pragmatic nations, is how to deal with its Islamic friends, as most Islamic nations base their policies on the Isalmic dictats vis a vis Israel and ultimately the Christian west. You cannot allow prejudices of the time of your scripture to intefere with the present. Its a scary and lengthy debate. For some reason (actually very vividyly prophecised) Israel is the core to world peace.
 
“Even a powerful country like India was threatened by the US Ambassador, David Mulford, who publicly declared in January 2006 that there would be no US–India nuclear deal if India did not vote against Iran in the Board. Stephen Rademaker, the then Assistant Secretary for Non-Proliferation and Global Security, boasted a year later in a public meeting that India 's vote was coerced by the US.”

What is so surprising?...you scratch my back,I scratch yours is International policy.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom