Ataturk’s use of religion

If one side dreams about return of Ottoman empire with Erdogan as its Khalifah, then the other side
also worships Turks in different form. Why does Pakistani educated class think that to prove that
someone is secularist, he has to follow Ataturk's version of secularism inspired by French model of
Laicism? It is quite radical in nature and believes in forceful implementation. While Ataturk himself
was an atheist, he used 'one ethnicity, one language, one religion' motto to define new Turkish
nationalism after the end of Ottoman Empire, which was house of several nations.
Hannafi Islam was important pillar of this Turkish nationalism. First Ataturk used call for "Jihad" to
rally troops against the Greeks and called Islam 'the most rational religion' but once that was no
longer needed then he pretty much threw that away. In my opinion, it was a disservice to the martyrs
when he called the same ideology which he used to send soldiers to their deaths to win war, and
define Turkish nationalism as 'immoral rotten corpse' later on.
After coming in power, Ataturk declared Islam as state religion. When it was abolished after 4 years,
ministry of religious affairs took its place, which again played a major role in defining Turkish
identity by promoting Hannafi Islam. Then he exchanged Muslim and non Muslim population with
Greeks. The ones who went from here to there were no longer considered Turks, and the ones who
came on his side were considered Turks because of their faith. Later he gave Turkified version of
religious books to his people, including translated Qurans.
After that, in 1932 he banned all non Muslims from having lucrative jobs. Reason was to uplift lower
classes from Muslim community in competitive market where non Muslims were more qualified. As
a result of these actions, non Muslim population fell from 15% to 0.2%. Then he banned Sufi order
and dargahs. They couldn't perform their religious rituals openly because of fear of being arrested for
belonging to an anti secular group or enemy of Turkified Hannafi Islam.
Some believe that the women were forced to wear certain dresses, while other outfits were outlawed
for being "outdated", even simple scarfs. These events are narrated differently, so I can’t confirm how
true that is but he definitely encouraged western outfits over others and wanted women to look the
way he wanted them to look.
I see it as something which is against the essence of liberalism. As someone once said; 'uncovering
women by force is as immoral as putting a veil on them. It's not liberalism, it's tyranny.'
If desi critics of Jinnah want to find someone to blame for being 'confused' or 'using religion' then
they should definitely read more about Ataturk and visit some archives. But despite all of his
decisions, he is considered as one of the greatest leaders of all time because he uplifted his people.
And he deserves all the praise he gets for it.
But compare his use of religion and other methods to Jinnah, who was inspired by British liberal
tradition of Disraeli and Gladstone. This version of secularism allows religion as long as it serves
secular cause on state level. However, it discourages theocracy and state led divine mission.
So, Jinnah was a lot more tolerant and consistent when it came to religion and theists in general.
During his 44 years in politics he always promoted separation of church and the state but he was also
proud of his Muslim identity despite not being a practicing Muslim in personal life.
But when criticized by clergy and conservative youth for being anti Islamic democrat, he gave vague
statements in return like ‘Islam and its idealism has taught us democracy and equality. But make no
mistake, Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it.’ Pick any speech which contains so called
Islamic references, it’ll probably be something similar.
Being a realist, he didn’t want to leave a void for someone else to fill it, so through such statements
where he actually encouraged democracy and equality, he tried to contain influence of religion in
politics the way he saw fit instead of leaving it entirely for Orthodoxy of Islamic faith to define. Now
these vague statements (without call for Jihad or theocracy) are used by critics and Islamists as some
sort of propaganda or a proof of something which never existed. And they quote them out of context.
For example, Islamic part is mentioned but where he states ‘but it won’t be theocracy and Islam is all
about democracy etc’ is left out.
Jinnah also wanted as many non Muslims in Pakistan as possible (at least 30%), so he could use them
to negotiate for protection of Muslim minority on other side of the border (and vice versa) through
treaties. Even after partition of Punjab and Bengal as well as separation of East Pakistan, we still
have at least 5% non Muslims in Pakistan, compared to 0.2% in Turkey (Miraculously Hinduism in
west Pakistan has grown since 1950s). Then there are several sects of Islam other than Hannafi
school of thought. He himself was from Shia sect, which is not a majority’s sect in Pakistan.
He also removed martial race rule which was preventing Bengalis (both Muslims and non Muslims)
from joining the army. So basically he freed them from slavery and enabled them to serve their
country for the first time in centuries. And contrary to popular belief, he didn’t declare Urdu as
national language. He actually promoted regional languages and multiculturalism. He, just like India,
saw Pakistan as ‘Nation of Nations’.
Jinnah recruited women to serve in politics as well as in para military wings. Those who couldn’t
serve directly were encouraged to serve from homes in pardah if they wished. But at the same time
he also criticized Musl!ms for locking women behind four walls of houses.
He wanted them to have greater roles but he never imposed any laws on them or told them how they
should dress despite not being a big fan of pardah himself. His own family wore everything, from
party dress to shalwar kameez and from sari to western clothes.
He vetoed resolution calling for having khilafat e Rashida ka nizam in Pakistan and asked his
colleagues to never bring such resolution again. He refused to declare state religion. He said no to
religious institutions. His cabinet had no ministry of religious affairs.
He offered an Englishman to write constitution of Pakistan. He refused but gave an outline. Then he
hired a Hindu to write constitution by following that outline which was crafted by a British Liberal
politician. He removed religious oaths entirely from Pakistan, so anyone could become head of the
state without even revealing his personal faith during oath taking ceremony, let alone state having a
religious ideology.
So, Ataturk did use religion, quite a bit actually even though he was inspired by French Philosophers,
who to me sound more anti theist than secular. But then despite being inspired by their methods, he
used Hannafi Islam in nation building process while being atheist himself.
So, I don’t know why Ataturk is seen as definitive secular and liberal person in Muslim world when
we know that there are different societies with their own issues who adopt different versions of
secularism to suit their needs. On other hand Jinnah definitely didn’t use religion as much as Ataturk
did despite being inspired by English philosophers who tolerate religion more than their French
counterparts.
Normally critics and Islamists only consider Turkish/French model when having a debate on these
issues and don’t bother reading about British constitutionalism (or Ataturk’s lesser known actions for
that matter).