Jinnah and Ataturk: Comparison in leadership models

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Reading through pages of history one is struck by the remarkable similarities between two leaders, contemporaries to each other, one from South Asia and the other from the frontier between Europe and Asia that is known as Turkey, but both of whom had the distinction of conjuring up nation states from a multitude of disorganized and demoralized people(s) whose only common bond was shared religious culture and a memory of a glorious empire of yesteryears.  What is more is that both these leaders were in their outlook European and shared a world view which was more western than that of their own people.  Both these leaders had to make hard choices and were plagued by the controversy that is the role of religion – in particular Islam- within the state.   These two leaders were Mahomed Ali Jinnah, hailed as “Quaid-e-Azam” or the great leader and the founding father of Pakistan and Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, the founder of Modern Turkey, Ebedi Sef (Eternal Leader) and the “father of the Turks”.

Mahomed Ali Jinnah was born MahomedAli Jinnahbhai in Karachi, a vibrant provincial town in British India, in 1876,  whereas Kemal Ataturk was born Mustapha in Salonica in Ottoman Turkey in 1881.  Both Jinnah and Ataturk had parents who were deeply religious, though Jinnah was born into the Ismaili community – the followers of the Agha Khan- and a subset of the Shiite Branch of Islam.  Ataturk’s exact religious origins are unknown.   There is a claim that he was an Alavi Shiite. Others claim he was from the “Donme” or the Jewish converts to Islam.   Ataturk himself identified with mainstream Hanafi Sunni Islam- the state creed of the Ottoman Empire- in his days in Army.   Both were educated in High Schools run by Muslim modernists in the tradition of finest European education.    Jinnah’s alma mater was the “Sindh Medressah-tul-Islam High School” (despite the name it was a school modeled on the lines of British Public school system – medressah means a school) and the Protestant Bombay Mission High School.  In contrast young Mustapha was initially sent to learn the Holy Quran in madrassah but his father,  Ali Reza,  thought him too good for simple religious education and had him transferred to a modern school.

Mustapha chose a career in the military as it was the right career for a young Muslim man in the Ottoman Empire, all other professions being too low for the ruling Turks.   Young Jinnah came from a largely business community and went to London to study commerce.  There he discovered that he wanted to be barrister and so he enrolled into London’s Lincoln’s Inn where he was called to bar at a very young age of 19 or 20.

It was at this time that both young Mustapha – who had earned the title of “Kemal” or excellence at the military academy- and young Jinnah were exposed to the ideas of enlightenment and western liberalism with one major difference. For Mustapha Kemal it was the radical liberalism of the philosophers of the French Political system which put its stock in “revolution”, but for Jinnah it was the constitutional liberalism of John Locke, Burke and John Morley which believed in “evolution”.  It was John Morley more than anyone else who ignited the fire of liberal politics in Jinnah.   I suspect Robespierre must have been  Kemal’s inspiration.

While Kemal was away on long military campaigns in distant parts of the Empire, most of Jinnah’s time in London was spent reading books in the Reading Room of the British Museum and listening to great debates of parliamentarians in the House of Commons.  He also actively campaigned for the successful election of Dadabhoy Naoroji, a Parsi liberal candidate, to the House of Commons.   Soon after the completion of his training as barrister, Jinnah returned to India where he toiled hard the next few years to set up a successful practice.  By age 30 he was reasonably accomplished as a barrister and it was then that Jinnah joined the Indian National Congress- the party of Indian nationalists striving for self rule, rising to prominence as its rising star and the most eloquent leader alongside Gokhale and Tilak.

Kemal too was stirred with the ideas he imbibed from Europe.  He was stirred by nationalism and joined “Watan” a secretive party consisting of  ambitious young Muslim officers of the Ottoman Empire who planned on throwing off the shackles of the Caliph in order to liberate their co-religionists from the tyranny of a feudal religious order.  For long the Ottoman Muslim elite had felt that religious edicts of the established order kept Muslims behind in commerce, economics and science.  Turkey’s various other Non-Muslim “millets” (community-nations) were doing very well without similar hindrances.  Perhaps the greatest impetus for the “Young Turks Revolution” came from a sense of injustice that nationalists like Enver Pasha and Kemal felt when they looked over to the cafes,  bars and shopping areas of the Non-Muslim districts of Constantinople and looked back at the squalor and dump the Muslim district of “Stambul” had become.  A similar impulse was to later inspire Muslim modernists of Aligarh etc to fight for and create a Muslim homeland in South Asia, which forms the basis for our comparison in this paper.

While Kemal always defined his identity in very clear terms as being rooted in the hopes and fears of the  ruling Muslim class in the decaying Ottoman Empire,   Jinnah to begin with saw himself as an Indian “first, second and last” and defined his identity in secular territorial terms- an Indian without consideration of religious or linguistic concern.    In 1906, he viewed with alarm the attempts of the Muslim elite to forge a separate identity and a separate political party, the Muslim League (which he was to join a almost a decade later), for themselves.  Interestingly at this time Jinnah vehemently opposed the principle of separate electorates for Muslims and rebuked the notion that Muslims had any special concerns.  Indeed to the very last, Jinnah did seemed to have held on to this secular conception of citizenship even if tactically, he came to support – as he put-  the separate electorate demand on temporary basis.   In 1916, Jinnah presided over what became known at the time as “Lucknow Pact” between the Congress and the Muslim League, of which both he was a member.  As a frontline secular Indian Nationalist Jinnah had joined the Muslim League on the condition that his commitment to the “national cause” would come before his loyalty to the Muslim League and that Muslim League would ally itself with the Congress in a united demand to attain self government.

This was also a time of great upheaval in the world.   A famous assassination in Sarajevo had plunged the entire western world into a great war.  Ottoman Turkey under the influence of the flamboyant and charismatic Enver Pasha, leader of the Young Turks and Turkey’s Minister of War, had made the fateful decision of joining forces with Germany.    Kemal had been part of the Turkish revolution but was never given a leading role and was not particularly liked by Enver Pasha.   This war – which was to end Enver Pasha’s political career-  came as a blessing in disguise for Kemal  who valiantly defending the coast of Galipolli against invading British, Australian, New Zealand and Indian troops winning fame all over Turkey.   It was this battle that got him the Islamic title of Gazi or victorious.   The war however ended badly for Germany and its allies, notably Turkey.   At the end of the war the Ottoman Empire was at the mercy of the British, the French and the Greeks.  This is where Kemal emerged to take charge of the Nationalist forces and resistance, setting up a parallel government in the Muslim majority region of Anatolia.   The treat at Versailles had proven to be humiliating and was widely condemned.  Kemal  denounced the treaty and declared war on all those who were trying  to carve up Turkey. Through a call for Islam and Jehad,   Kemal Ataturk united the Muslim inhabitants of Anatolia under his banner and inflicted a most severe defeat on the invading Greek forces, bringing the British and the French to the table.   His right hand man Ismet (later Ismet Inonu) won a great victory at Inonu which sealed the fate of the Greek campaign in Thrace.  Ismet went as the representative and chief negotiator of the parallel national government to Laussane where he signed a treaty preserving the Muslim majority areas of the erstwhile Ottoman Empire between Greece, Armenia, Georgia and Syria as one state.  Thus was born the first real Nation-state in the Muslim World.   The treaty of Laussane was also the first treaty in the history of the 20th century to accept the concept of religious identity as ethnicity- a principle that was to be later applied to Pakistan, Israel, Ireland,  East Timor and more recently Kosovo.

For the Muslims of British India, the defeat of Turkey in the first world war created a new anxiety.  A majority of the Muslims in India were Sunni Muslims and followers of the Turkish Caliph.  They soon started an agitation for the protection of “Khilafat”, which was joined in by the famous Hindu leader,  Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.  Gandhi, being a religious man, believed religious Muslims and religious Hindus could work together to drive the British out.  Jinnah, while sympathetic to Turkey and its cause,  viewed with skepticism both the Khilafat movement, which he described as “false religious frenzy”,  and  warned Gandhi against the mixing of religious causes with political ones.  Jinnah’s secular constitutional approach found no takers in the Congress or amongst the Muslims and so he broke away from the Congress Party, briefly making his own “Liberal Independents” party within the Indian legislature.  He also became the president of his own anti-British faction of the Muslim League before finally giving up – after the death of his wife – and settling down in London in 1931.

Meanwhile in 1924, Kemal Ataturk and the Turkish legislature voted to abolish the institution of Khilafat.  Kemal Ataturk had set about on a Modernist agenda which was to transform Turkey into a secular state.      This was an objective Ataturk followed with great zeal and determination.  He singlehandedly transformed a conservative Muslim nation in a European nation overnight.   In many ways this undid the glorious past of the Turks but Ataturk forged ahead with his remarkable reforms i.e.  the abolition of canonical law, the introduction of Swiss legal code,  roman alphabet for Turkey replacing the age old Arabic script which was the language of the Quran, complete equality for women and finally the abolition of state religion in 1927.   He also attempted religious reform by attempting to “Turkify” Quran and increasing state control of Islam.    Ataturk passed away in 1938 leaving his republic to his able successor Ismet Inonu.

It was in 1932 that Jinnah- while in self-imposed exile in Hampstead, read H C Armstrong’s “Grey Wolf” the biography of Kemal Ataturk, which according to Jinnah’s biographers – reignited the passion of politics in him.  Apparently he had seen a reflection of himself in Ataturk’s life (Jinnah of Pakistan by Stanley Wolpert page 132) .  In many ways, Jinnah was the epitome of the modernity and western civilization that Ataturk had wanted his people to adopt.  Jinnah was schooled in British tradition of law and his habits were entirely shaped by the Victorian era in which he had come of age.  In the 1930s though, he was an avid member of the Fabian Society and was trying to win an election to the House of Commons.   And like Kemal Ataturk, Jinnah had loved and lost, except in Kemal Ataturk’s case it was two women:  Fikriye, the young Anatolian country girl who doted over Ataturk but whom Ataturk never married.  Fikriye died mostly of broken heart.    It was Latife who married him.  She was daughter of a rich Turk who had schooled her in Paris.   The marriage ended in failure and they divorced.   Jinnah had married Ruttie, the beautiful socialite daughter of Parsi businessman,  Sir Dinshaw Petit who had opposed their marriage bitterly.   For  a time they were the most sought after couple in Bombay but Jinnah was a busy man and could not give his young wife the attention she deserved.  She died of Collitis aggravated by a deep sense of abandonment.   She had borne Jinnah a daughter, Dina,  who currently resides in New York City.

Fuelled by a desire to “modernize Indian Muslims like Ataturk” (“Under Shadow of Swords” by M J Akbar) Jinnah returned to Bombay and took over the leadership of the moribund Muslim League.    After failing to come to an arrangement with the Congress over power sharing,   Jinnah and the Muslim League passed the famous Lahore Resolution at one of the largest mass gatherings in Indian history till that point calling for a new federation to be formed of Muslim majority provinces.   This was though more of a maximum demand, as Jinnah showed repeatedly the willingness to settle for autonomous regions within United India and safeguards for the Muslim minority within United India.  The breakdown of negotiations between the Muslim League and Congress on the issue of the Cabinet Mission Plan which could have preserved Indian Unity and which Jinnah had bent over backwards to convince his followers to accept.   As the Indian author Joya Chatterji wrote in her book “Bengal Divided”,  ultimately partition was a Hindu choice and not purely a Muslim one as is often believed.

Horrible communal violence broke out as a result of the partition of Bengal and Punjab- a partition that Jinnah did not want.  He had wanted his federation to consist of units with a new center and not the actual partition of units.    In the wake of this,  Jinnah took office – surprisingly as the Governor General- instead of the Prime Minister- a move that is often criticized by the purists of parliamentary democracy.  Jinnah however was already dying of cancer (he died 13 months later) when he took office and preferred to leave the day to day running to his right hand man Liaqat Ali Khan, Pakistan’s first Prime Minister.    While speaking to the constituent assembly Jinnah made the clearest pronouncement of his secularism :

“You are free – You are free to go to your temples, mosques or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan.  You may belong to any religion, caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state. ..   if we keep this infront of us as a principle, you will see that in due course of time,  Hindus will cease be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in a religious sense because that is the personal faith of an individual-  but in a political sense as citizens of the state”. (Jinnah 11th August, 1947)

He went on to recount the history of Protestant and Catholic conflict in England and how they had evolved beyond it and he expressed his fervent hope that in Pakistan there would be no bar against any class or religion.   This was a tectonic shift from the “Muslim nation” Jinnah had led from 1940 onwards to a secular Pakistani nation.   The only other example of this tectonic shift in the Muslim world was Ataturk himself who similarly retired the Turkish nationalism based on Muslim identity in 1928 and sought to define Turkish nationalism on the basis of Turkish language and Pre-Islamic Turkish identity.

Both Jinnah and Kemal Ataturk have the unique distinction of being the founding fathers of two of the earliest Muslim nation states emerging after an era of colonialism.   Both were men to a large extent shaped and influenced by ideas that emanated from Europe and the Western civilization.   Both were political liberals and secular in their world view but both championed at a certain time in their lives the cause of a people defined primarily by group identity based on religion- in Jinnah’s case, Indian Muslims, and in Ataturk’s case – Muslims of Anatolia who were called Turks.   Yet both imagined their states on European lines as Republics run modern principles and constitutional lines.   The difference however was in approach.   Ataturk was a military man and was largely inspired by the French secular strain.  Therefore Ataturk’s approach was quite aggressive, which included stringent measures by the state to clamp down on religious symbolism and identity- even if Ataturk had himself used them during the Turkish War of Independence.

Jinnah was a lawyer and parliamentarian for most of his life.   Furthermore his liberalism and secularism was of a constitutional variety derived from the rich British tradition.   The British tradition itself is much more tolerant of religion (indeed there are some like archbishop of Canterbury who state that perhaps even Islamic sharia has a role to play in modern legal system) and accepts religion as the civic basis of secular laws- keeping with the work and thought of John Locke who had initiated the whole idea of a modern state with his social contract and the “true end of government” by applying Christian ideals to statehood.   Thus Jinnah’s secularism was not aggressive but steeped in British tradition in so much that it expected evolution to a point where religion would become a non-issue.   In any event, the short run has shown greater success for Kemal Ataturk’s model of secularism in Turkey.   In Pakistan, the state has increasingly moved away from Jinnah’s conception of an impartial secular state and had increasingly created new religious bars which have made some question the very basis of the country.   In Turkey we have seen that after decades of repression, the pro-Islam forces have come to define secularism in terms that would be closer to Jinnah than Ataturk- secularism as state impartiality instead of state’s active persecution of the religious minded.

Both Kemal Ataturk and Mahomed Ali Jinnah are accused of being authoritarian and autocratic.   Kemal Ataturk was a military man and was ushering in a new form of government to an ancient people.  Ataturk resorted measured repression and even military action against his dissidents.  Meanwhile    Jinnah is accused of being autocratic because he removed a provincial government using his constitutional powers as the Governor General.   As  Ardeshir Cowasjee described him “he professed top be a democrat but was in reality a benign dictator who harmed no one.  He merely put his foot down when necessary”.  The provincial government removed was a government that had been openly hostile to the centre and many Jinnah apologists claim that it was out practical necessity. Whatever the case, the interim constitution in force did allow Jinnah to take such an action.

Both Jinnah and Ataturk made the disastrous miscalculation of trying to impose a state language on their diverse people.   Ataturk’s decision to impose Turkish and ban all other languages is seen by many as the basis for the Kurdish crisis which has continued since.    Jinnah to his credit did not ban any regional language, but he made the fateful mistake of elevating the Urdu language, spoken only by migrants to Pakistan from India, as the state language of Pakistan.   This despite his promise that regional languages would get the requisite provincial status.   His announcement did not go down well with his Bengali followers who rejected his statement leading to the language controversy in Pakistan.  Even though Bengali was later made a state language as well,  this is cited as one of the causes of the later breakup of Pakistan in 1971.   Turkey on the other hand held on to its Kurdish regions by coercion and military might.

Ataturk and Jinnah are highly revered as the founding fathers of their states.   In Turkey it is punishable under law to insult the memory of Ataturk.  In Pakistan, Jinnah enjoys the iconic state-defined status of “Quaid-e-Azam”  or great leader and is generally viewed as above reproach.   Both Turkey and Pakistan, staunch cold war allies of the United States, have gone through extended periods of military rule but also dysfunctional but vibrant democracies.  Today both these states are emerging as functional democratic states but they have much to learn from the legacy of their founding fathers.   Turkey  must honor Ataturk’s strong commitment to secularism but must make a break with Ataturk’s strong anti-religion stance and coercive policies with regard to language etc.    Pakistan has developed a consensus that allows for some role of Islam in state and constitution.   Nonetheless it must honor Jinnah’s commitment to all citizens of Pakistan that Pakistan would not discriminate against its minorities on the basis of religion and that Pakistan would be a state based on rule of law.   It must also seek its inspiration for parliamentary democracy from Jinnah’s long career as a parliamentarian in British India- where he made a very solid contribution to both the laws of India and Pakistan, instead of taking his role as the first Governor General of Pakistan in exclusion or his pronouncements on the language issue.

Advertisements

51 Comments

Filed under History, Jinnah

51 responses to “Jinnah and Ataturk: Comparison in leadership models

  1. Pervaiz Munir Alvi

    Excellent comparative study by YLH. To carry the comparison a step further, in political and cultural sense Pakistan is to the Mughal Empire what Turkey is to the Ottoman Empire. Both modern nation-states have come to preserve the cultural heritage and political prominence of their respective people. Both states are at the cultural and political ‘fronts’ of the Muslim heartland; Turkey on the western front with Christian Greece and Europe, and Pakistan on the eastern front with Hindu India.

    Few more observations: Mustafa Kamal is known as ‘Ata-turk’ (Father of Turks) and Jinnah is affectionately called as ‘Baba-e-Qaum’ (Father of Nation).

    Term ‘canonical law’ needs revision as terms ‘canon’ ‘qanon’ and ‘law’ are interchangeable.
    Also of interest is the name ‘Inonu’. It is pronounced as ‘Yonanu’ like Greece is called ‘Yonan’ in oriental languages. Very well done Mr. Hamadani

  2. Newb3e

    Ataturk was a jewish pawn Jews main obective was the destruction of Claphit and Ataturk was given the task to destroy it.It was a major blow to Muslim rule all over the world.

    And there are some reports I read a few days back that ataturk his self was a jew and a homo.

    So please dont compare him to Jinnah

  3. Ahmed Q Chowdhry

    YLH- As usual another excellent contribution. History again points out that we in Pakistan still have a long battle to achieve a modern state.

    I have recently discovered this wonderful blog and the wealth of material published here. I was wondering if there are other good Pakistani blogs besides the Pak Tea House

    Newb3e- The stereotypical response of a closed mind. Anybody who does not fit your version of a Muslim is either a Jew or a kafir. The world has moved on beyond these petty labels. I would suggest you do the same.

  4. Majumdar

    Yasser,

    Well-written.

    Pervaiz,

    in political and cultural sense Pakistan is to the Mughal Empire what Turkey is to the Ottoman Empire.

    The only difference is that many citizens of the former dream about reviving the Mughal Empire (the dispossessed Mughal syndrome), Turks dont.

    Regards

  5. YLH

    New3be,

    People have said worse things about Jinnah. No wonder Jinnah described Kemal Ataturk the greatest Musalman of the age.

    PMA,

    I completely agree with you. Infact I had mentioned this historical similarity between Turkey and Pakistan in an article which was picked up by a think tank in the US.

    Another comparison I am intrigued by is the remarkable philosophical congruence in the works of Mehmed Zia Gokalp and Allama Muhammad Iqbal, both trying to reconcile their Islamic beliefs with Nietzche’s philosophy… infact Iqbal makes several references to Gokalp in the Reconstruction of Religious Thought of Islam lectures.

    Gokalp is still considered the father of Turkish Nationalism and foremost philosopher who impacted Kemal Ataturk’s thinking. Sounds familiar?

    Thank god I went to Rutgers where I read the famous 6 days speech (the special copy dispatched to Rutgers in 1932 by the Turkish govt) as well Gokalp’s famous Principles of Turkism. There is no substitute for knowledge really.

  6. YLH

    Ahmad/majumdar,

    Thank you for your appreciation. Maj, if the Mughal Empire redux means a democratized version of Akbar’s rule, maybe it is not a bad idea.

    PS to PMA

    Yet another similarity is how the armies in Turkey and Pakistan sent to the gallows Menderes and Bhutto, two popularly elected Prime Ministers.

  7. I do appreciate yours writing,but we should also not forget the worst aspects of Mr-Jinnah contrary to Mr-Ataturk.
    Mr-Jinnah had served as an British Imperialist man and had served their interests.They are also responsible for the massacre of millions on the world worst crime of the Division of Sub-Continent.Furthermore Mr-Jinnah was the initiator of breaking the 1st legal Assemble of Dr-Khan in NWFP and the then his legal expert Mr-Sharifud-din-pirzada was resposible for the invention of Doctrine of Necessity.
    Where as Ataturk was a great modern thinker and today you can see the difference of both the states.

  8. Newb3e

    well brothers Usmania Khilafat was the last Muslim empire based on the Foundation of Khulfa -e – Rashedeen.And every non Muslim were scared of Usmania Khilfat and jews always knew they can not create israel if Khilafat is intact.

    So if anyone thinks I am closed minded for defending Khilfat and cursing that gay jew pawn then I am proud of it.

  9. Newb3e

    @harris azhar :I know Turkey has developed it self after attaturk but Development at the cost of Morallity and Religion is not Development.In turkey Azan is banned on the groud of Noise Polution,Men are not allowed to grow beard (where is the freedom of expression) or you can just ban Islamic things and no one cares.There was huge demonstration against court rulling in favour of Head scarft (they want to live naked like animals) where is the decency.

  10. Saad Abbasi

    Well there is another similarity that Hamdani you missed, both stuck deadly blows at Islam and both failed miserably. Islam despite all their effort is still the deciding factor in the two nations and is resurgent.

  11. YLH

    Haris Azhar,

    Little knowledge is dangerous and you’ve shown us why.

    What you’ve written is merely propaganda and has no historical basis.

    You should read H M Seervai’s Partition of India Legend and Reality – it is by an indian and it will set your mind straight. The total number killed at partition is estimated between 180000 (penderel moon) and 275000 (h v hodson) . Infact it was the Pakistan govt that brought the issue of massacres to the UN .. Indian government claimed that they were mere disturbances.

    On the dismissal of the NWFP government – not only was it a constitutional and legal but the only moral alternative left. I have written a five part series in which I have covered this issue. As per agreement it was Mountbatten who should have dismissed the NWFP ministry but he didn’t because he wanted to create problems for Jinnah.
    Your claim that Jinnah was a stooge of British imperialism is as laughable a claim as new3be’s claim that Ataturk was a jewish pawn. If you review Jinnah’s career from the start honestly you will see how disgustingly dishonest this claim is.

    Dr B R Ambedkar -the author of Indian constitution- called Jinnah the most incorruptible politician in India who could not be bought by anyone. Humayun Kabir, Azad’s confidante and Congressite, called Jinnah the harshest anti-imperialist in India. So even your own masters don’t agree with your nonsense.

    And yes Kemal Ataturk was a modern thinker but Jinnah was doubly so. The difference was that had Ataturk been in Jinnah’s place, he would not have been content with merely dismissing constitutionally the Khan ministry. Ataturk would have had the Khan bros tried and hanged for treason.

    Perhaps the way to deal with ethnonationalists like Pushtuns or Balochs was the way Kemal Ataturk dealt with the Kurds but Jinnah was too rooted in the British constitutional tradition to resort to such repression.

    Given what is going on in NWFP, I wish Jinnah would have been a dictator like Kemal Ataturk.

  12. YLH

    PS just because Sharifuddin Pirzada claims to have known Jinnah doesn’t mean he actually did.

    Pirzada’s claims were denied by Fatima Jinnah, K H Khurshid and Lobo. Jinnah’s personal secretaries were a Syrian Christian by the name of Lobo and the Kashmiri democrat K H Khurshid. There is no record of Sharifuddin Pirzada and even Pirzada’s friends don’t accept his claims.

  13. YLH

    Saad abbasi,

    How ironic for you that both Jinnah and Ataturk had first names in common with the Holy Prophet (PBUH).

    Why don’t you do some magical thinking on that?

  14. Majumdar

    Newbe,

    The Osmanli Khilafat that you are so proud of ( and you so lament Kemal destroying it) had a 200 year plus (1683-1918) record of getting continuously thrashed by Europeans. Now if you want a system where the Muslims would again get 200 years of thrashing, I am sure Mr GWB and co. would be very happy to hear that.

    Regards

  15. Newb3e

    get your facts right it ruled most of the europe for more then 600 years.Europeans were scared of the empire and when the empire was weak it created a HOMO JEWISH hero to destroy the empire and create a so called muslim state where women are free to roam half naked and where azan is banned and whose army cheif is a jew.

    That state is a shame a shame on Muslim society and Ataturk a homo evil will burn in hell for his deeds

    Ameen

  16. YLH

    Majumdar,

    People like new3be and haris azhar love to opine without knowing the facts.

    Had there been no Kemal Ataturk, Turkey would have been disintegrated and would be part of Russia, Armenia and Greece.

    I think the irrational hatred that both men inspire in certain sections of their populations ie certain Islamists and ethnonationalists like Kurds, Pushtuns etc is another commonality between the two.

  17. Majumdar

    Newbe,

    Ottomans ruled the most backward and poor part of Europe. You are right that they had lot of military successes but that was only till the 17th century. After that there was a terminal decline and Turkey came to be called Sick Man of Europe.

    Regards

    PS: YLH, I think you need to weave the same magic on PTH as you once did on chowk

  18. Newb3e

    Jews and Europeans are master of muniplating history and ruling the world.

    Jews cried about Holocaust and they are given free hand to kill Muslims everywhere.

  19. Newb3e

    And why would we care if some non muslim called the Empire Sick man of europe.

  20. Aliarqam

    The reforms of Ataturk were appreciated and defended by those Ulema having relations with JUH…they did not oppose it…

  21. Aliarqam

    Thanks….Yasser…My misunderstandings regarding ur view of the partition are resolved….I agree to you that Jinnah’s consent on Cabinet mission plan was his sincere attempt to resolve the issue in the most suitable manner…and the partition was merely a Nehruian choice as well as some of those who were at Jinnah Side…but he could not be blamed for that…jinnah’s criticism of Gandhi’ pseudo-religious approach was right…as same is done by Ubaidullah Sindhi…he criticized Gandhi religious practices on political platform of Congress….

  22. Majumdar

    Aliarqam sahib,

    I agree to you that Jinnah’s consent on Cabinet mission plan was his sincere attempt to resolve the issue in the most suitable manner

    Here I beg to differ from you. The CMP was an extremely unsuitable method to resolve the issue. Whoever ensured a complete partition prolly did the sub-continent a great deal of good.

    Regards

  23. Aliarqam

    Majumdar sb…
    Let your point be more elaborated

  24. Pervaiz Munir Alvi

    Majumdar: Trust me. With the exception of few bearded crackpots, no one in Pakistan is interested in raising ‘crescent & star’ atop Lal Qala. Such sentiments, if they do, generally exist in Delhi Walas who still lament about Taj Mahal. The facts are that as a dominant force, Muslims of Sub-continental India were spent by the mid eighteenth century. We Pakistanis, particularly in Punjab, Frontier and Kashmir got petty good thrashing at the hands of Sikhs. Pakistan for us is a necessity. But these days our hands are so full, we can not even think of Kashmir. We as a nation are embattled for our survival. But this much is true. Pakistan has helped us to preserve our unique culture, safeguard our political prominence, and allow us to gain economic strength. That is what Jinnah fought for.

    And to those who have commented bout Turkey. Same could be said about that sister country of ours. During my travels I have received very warm welcome from our Turkish brothers. They love Pakistan and are very proud of her. No, azan is not prohibited in Turkey. Only it is regulated. They do not allow obscene blaring and religious hatred coming out of mosques at all times. Some thing Pakistan needs to adopt as well. About scarf and beard, those who wish to observe it they do. No, Turkish women do not run around naked. Actually from European standards they are very conservative. Those who do not believe me, take a trip to Turkia. It is wonderful place to visit.

  25. YLH

    Majumdar,

    I don’t know about that really. CMP is one of those what-ifs.

    I agree with ali on this one… though I beg to differ with ali on the issue of JUH ulema. Obaidullah Sindhi was a notable exception whose vision was greatly broadened by his exposure to international politics in Afghanistan. Deoband and JUH by and large remained opposed to Kemalist reforms and used to taunt Muslim Leaguers as “kemalists”. Ofcourse Muslim League was the only political party which commemorated “Kemal Day” on Jinnah’s direct orders.

  26. aliarqam

    As for as the azan is concerned….as PMA is saying its right the impression of our dear friend about Turkey is based on books and magazine….who just claim and print..whether right or wrong…
    I love Dr Salim Akhtar’s dedication of his book on Fundamentalism..he dedicated it to Loud Speaker…the basis for religious hatred and sectarinism is the device much opposed by the clergies in the begining…

  27. YLH

    The Azan was never banned.

    In the 1940s Ismet Inonu made it mandatory for Azan to be in Turkish. However this was reversed under Jelal Bayer in the 50s.

    Btw Ismet Inonu was one of the greatest friends of Pakistan. I once stumbed across a book at Columbia university’s library which contained Jinnah-Inonu correspondence.

  28. Ahmed Chowdhry

    On the issue of the Ottoman Empire. YLH, you must be aware of the Holocaust that was inflicted by the Turkish rulers on the Armenians. Robert Fisk, the indomitable journalist from UK ( The independent) has chronicled it well in his articles about the region.

    Lest anybody forgets, Robert Fisk is one of the best International correspondents of our time and is a strict supporter of the Palestinians cause. Its just that we Muslims tend to forget about the excesses that we have committed over the years.

  29. Majumdar

    Pervaiz,

    Pakistan has helped us to preserve our unique culture, safeguard our political prominence, and allow us to gain economic strength. That is what Jinnah fought for.

    True. MAJ (pbuh) saved his people from slavery. And that is why I regard him very highly for it.

    Regards

  30. Aliarqam

    It’s again the typical reactionary approach…that Jinnah saved us from slavery…
    First of all,partition was not the most appropriate solution for the muslims…as Muslims are more than Pakistan in nowadays India…If someone had wished to achieve this goal..he failed…
    Pakistan movement was best supported in the provinces which then became a part of India…
    Most of Jinnah..followers do agree to that what Jinnah has envisioned for Pakistan has not achieved yet…So how can someone prove…we have got something better..which could not be achieved in United India…
    How can someone claim that Indian muslims are in worst condition than Pakistani Muslims…

  31. Hunainsaani

    Mughal Empire is not disowned by the Indians…its a part of collective history…

  32. Hunainsaani

    Even the most accused one Aurangzeb Alamgir was not disowned by the Indians…someone should study
    Ram Kushan Parshad book on Alamgir…
    In Pakistan its published with Dr Mubarak Ali preface…

  33. Majumdar

    Ali aqram sahib,

    When Pakistan was formed, its borders were open for all Muslims of minority provinces who wanted to walk across, if many didnt I presume it means that they were happy whererever they were. But Muslims of majority provinces wanted their independence and so did many minority province Muslims (the forefathers of today’s Mojos).

    Statistically at least it is true that Pak Muslims are better off than IMs so in a way the TNT hypothesis is validated. Plus, Pak Muslims are politically predominant in Pakistan. Yes, things would have been better for PMs if MAJ (pbuh)’s vision had worked out correct.

    Regards

  34. Zak

    My own two pence:

    I don’t see how one can call Pakistan a successor to the Mughal Empire..yes there is a natural continuity between Attaturk and the Ottoman’s young Turks ..Turkish nationalism. The only continuity factor was the initial dominance of the urdu speaking elite of central India in Pakistan.

    Attaurk, the Shah of Iran and King Amanullah all approached modernisation and westernisation as interchangable words, unlike the Japanese.

    So why is it that only attaurks reforms held? i attribute that to Attaurks success as a military leader.

    P.s: Attaturk had no connection with the Armenian massacres.

  35. YLH

    Zak,

    PMA’s basic argument is bang on target. Within the Muslims of UP were the gentry – the ex-mughal ruling class which strongly felt the pinch of the loss of sovereignty.

    This corresponds to Ataturk and comrades’ position as Ottoman officers. The only difference here is Jinnah unlike Ataturk had no connection to the dispossessed Mughal class as he came from an Ismaili business family.

  36. YLH

    Ali,

    The total population of Indian Muslims is a few millions less than Pakistani Muslims.

    And you have to remember that Pakistan today does not include Bangladesh.

  37. Aliarqam

    Jinnah vision is not fully owned by the League…as it was based on the elite who was just power hungry…with some exceptions…they had no vision…for a new country…how it will be established…Unfortunately the very early demise of Jinnah after the independance has left then shattered…thatswhy they could not build a system here….

  38. Mowgli

    “Plus, Pak Muslims are politically predominant in Pakistan.”

    Where else will they be predominant? Iran? Afghanistan?

  39. Pervaiz Munir Alvi

    On the subject of Pakistan-Mughal Empire and Turkey-Ottoman Empire analogy. Had there been a ‘Muslim-Indian Ataturk’ chances are that Muslims of India would had been spared from the total political humiliation, economic inhalation and cultural degradation that fell upon them at the fall of the Mughal Empire.

    Argument could be made that there is a time-line continuity in the case of Turkey-Ottoman Empire that is missing in the case of Pakistan-Mughal Empire.

    But let us examine the overall political, economical and cultural conditions of Muslims of India in the two hundred years preceding the independence. Muslims were a non factor. Yes the time-line continuity was broken. Turkish republic, even with the so called continuity could not save (within the boundaries of this argument) Muslims of the provinces particularly in South-eastern Europe. Jinnah tried hard to save political rights of all Muslims of India by agreeing to the three-federations formula but the other side did not agree to it. Pakistan of 1947 was the best of the worst alternatives. When total victory is not possible one must cut the losses. That is what Ataturk did in the case of Eastern Europe.

    Jinnah did for the Muslims of North-west and North-east of the Sub-continental India what Ataturk did for the Muslims of Anatolia. Pakistan is a continuation of the Mughal Empire in the sense of political prominence, economic opportunities, and cultural florishment of the Muslims of the North-west of the Sub-continent. To look at the continuity factor as “dominance of Urdu speaking elite of Central India in Pakistan” would be very provincial.

  40. ahmad khan

    Kemal Pasha (Lanat Allahi) , better known to us as Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey, temporarily cut Turkey’s ties with the shared political legacy inherited from Islam. What he thought of the religion that determined every aspect of life in the Ottoman Empire he expressed in words that one might have been more likely to attribute to Voltaire than to a highly decorated Turkish general: “For more than 500 years the rules formulated by an old Arab sheikh (a reference to Muhammad) and the abstruse interpretations of generations of ignorant preachers in Turkey have shaped our civil and penal laws. Islam, this absurd theology created by an immoral Bedouin, is a decaying cadaver that is poisoning our lives.” He termed any politician who needs religion to rule an “imbecile.”
    Is this a man to admire ?
    He must be cursed
    May he rot in Hell the accursed Kamal Pasha with
    Abu Lahab

  41. Aliarqam

    What can U people do except allotting someone heaven or hell….

  42. ahmad khan

    I am not the one alloting him to him
    It is Allah S.W.T to decide on the Day of Qiyamah.
    But his actions and words make me no sympathy for him
    It is you who seek to defend him despite his clear statement of kufr

  43. Majumdar

    Ahmed Khan sahib,

    Attaturk created a state which has survived almost 90 years and is going from strength to strength. It has kept itself out of WOT proudly. Outside the oil rich sheikhdoms it is the richest and most developed Muslim country.

    Regards

  44. Pervaiz Munir Alvi

    ‘People of religion’ have as much right to express their opinion as others do. That they speak in ‘tongue’ (god, hell, heaven) is no reason to dismiss them. The fact remains that Ataturk created a Turkish nation out of a demoralized lot. He overthrew a decaying, corrupt and immoral institution that had over-lived its relevance and usefulness. I wish there was an Ataturk for us at the fall of the Mughal Empire. Where Turks have successfully created a modern nation-state, Paks have miserably failed in every aspect of nation building. Our self-preserving middle class has not done its share in improving the lives of poor. Our self-indulgent ruling class has failed us. Oh, where are you Mohammad Ali Jinnah!

  45. Aliarqam

    Peoples with religious approach are not familiar with arguments and debates…reading the religious script…and the old Elm e kalaam style…they have nothing except threatening….for the hell…

  46. Aliarqam

    If U believe from the deobandi school of thought…U Should know that even many of them had praised Ataturk…and justified some of his actions..with no more better choice than that…
    And as for as ur claim for the turkish people that they are again becoming religious…its a joke..
    Even the thoughts of Turkish ruling parties…If someone had them in Pakistan..U would have allotted place in heaven for him also

  47. Aliarqam

    If U belong from the deobandi school of thought…U Should know that even many of them had praised Ataturk…and justified some of his actions..with no more better choice than that…
    And as for as ur claim for the turkish people that they are again becoming religious…its a joke..
    Even the thoughts of Turkish ruling parties…If someone had them in Pakistan..U would have allotted place in heaven for him also

  48. ahmad khan

    where did I claim that turkish people are becoming religious ?
    There was no complete information about kamal pasha’s views and immoralities about alcohol and women so while he did try to “modernize” he went too far and created a corporatist and semi-fascistic state where the state is everything
    http://www.syracuseuniversitypress.syr.edu/fall-2004-catalog/kemalist-turkey.html

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n17/print/ande01_.html

  49. Saad Abbasi

    YLH that was so Juvenile!

  50. YLH

    Hur banday ko us kay apnay level pay jawab deta hoon bhai. Agar juvenile tha to tumharay response mein thaa.

  51. YLH

    “Ataturk earned his place in history by directing the successful resistance of the Muslim inhabitants of Anatolia”

    Page 532, Ataturk by Andrew Mango published by the Overlook Press Woodstock and New York 1999