Negotiating Democracy and Religious

Pluralism: India, Pakistan, and Turkey

Karen Barkey
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/negotiating-democracy-and-religious-pluralism-india-
pakistan-and-turkey-karen-barkey/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Digital Authoritarianism and its Religious

Legitimization: The Cases of Turkey, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Pakistan, and India Ihsan Yilmaz

https://ebookmass.com/product/digital-authoritarianism-and-its-
religious-legitimization-the-cases-of-turkey-indonesia-malaysia-
pakistan-and-india-ihsan-yilmaz/

Religious Disagreement and Pluralism Matthew A. Benton

(Editor)

https://ebookmass.com/product/religious-disagreement-and-
pluralism-matthew-a-benton-editor/

Negotiating Masculinities and Modernity in the Maritime

World, 1815–1940 Karen Downing

https://ebookmass.com/product/negotiating-masculinities-and-
modernity-in-the-maritime-world-1815-1940-karen-downing/

Line on Fire: Ceasefire Violations and India–Pakistan

Escalation Dynamics Jacob

https://ebookmass.com/product/line-on-fire-ceasefire-violations-
and-india-pakistan-escalation-dynamics-jacob/
Capable Women, Incapable States: Negotiating Violence
and Rights in India Poulami Roychowdhury

https://ebookmass.com/product/capable-women-incapable-states-
negotiating-violence-and-rights-in-india-poulami-roychowdhury/

Marginalized, Mobilized, Incorporated. Women and

Religious Nationalism in Indian Democracy Rina Verma
Williams

https://ebookmass.com/product/marginalized-mobilized-
incorporated-women-and-religious-nationalism-in-indian-democracy-
rina-verma-williams/

Gambling with Violence: State Outsourcing of War in

Pakistan and India Yelena Biberman

https://ebookmass.com/product/gambling-with-violence-state-
outsourcing-of-war-in-pakistan-and-india-yelena-biberman/

John Hick's Religious Pluralism in Global Perspective

Sharada Sugirtharajah

https://ebookmass.com/product/john-hicks-religious-pluralism-in-
global-perspective-sharada-sugirtharajah/

Pakistan Factor and the Competing Perspectives in

India: Party Centric View Raja Qaiser Ahmed

https://ebookmass.com/product/pakistan-factor-and-the-competing-
perspectives-in-india-party-centric-view-raja-qaiser-ahmed/
Negotiating Democracy and Religious
Pluralism
 M O D E R N S OU T H A SIA

Ashutosh Varshney, Series Editor

Pradeep Chhibber, Associate Series Editor

Editorial Board
Kaushik Basu (Cornell)
Sarah Besky (Cornell)
Jennifer Bussell (Berkeley)
Veena Das (Johns Hopkins)
Patrick Heller (Brown)
Niraja Gopal Jayal (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
Devesh Kapur (Johns Hopkins)
Atul Kohli (Princeton)
Pratap Bhanu Mehta (Ashoka University)
Shandana Khan Mohmand (University of Sussex)
Ashley Tellis (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)
Steven Wilkinson (Yale)

The Other One Percent

Sanjoy Chakravorty, Devesh Kapur, and Nirvikar Singh
Social Justice through Inclusion
Francesca R. Jensenius
Dispossession without Development
Michael Levien
The Man Who Remade India
Vinay Sitapati
Business and Politics in India
Edited by Christophe Jaffrelot, Atul Kohli, and Kanta Murali
Clients and Constituents
Jennifer Bussell
Gambling with Violence
Yelena Biberman
Mobilizing the Marginalized
Amit Ahuja
The Absent Dialogue
Anit Mukherjee
When Nehru Looked East
Francine Frankel
Capable Women, Incapable States
Poulami Roychowdhury
Farewell to Arms
Rumela Sen
Negotiating Democracy
and Religious Pluralism
India, Pakistan, and Turkey
Edited by
KA R E N BA R K EY, SU D I P TA KAV I R AJ, A N D
VAT S A L NA R E SH

1
 3
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2021

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2021904812

ISBN 978–​0–​19–​753002–​3 (pbk.)

ISBN 978–​0–​19–​753001–​6 (hbk.)

DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197530016.001.0001

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Paperback printed by Marquis, Canada
Hardback printed by Bridgeport National Bindery, Inc., United States of America
To the late Alfred C. Stepan, mentor, colleague, friend, and preeminent scholar
of democracy, toleration, and authoritarianism. May his ceaseless advocacy for
democracy and his infinite wisdom guide our path.
 Contents

Acknowledgments  ix
Contributors  xi

Itineraries of Democracy and Religious Plurality  1

Karen Barkey, Sudipta Kaviraj, and Vatsal Naresh

I . H I S T O R IC A L P E R SP E C T I V E S

1. Islam, Modernity, and the Question of Religious Heterodoxy:

From Early Modern Empires to Modern Nation-​States  31
Sadia Saeed
2. Liberalism and the Path to Treason in the Ottoman Empire,
1908–​1923  59
Christine Philliou
3. Fatal Love: Intimacy and Interest in Indian Political Thought  75
Faisal Devji
4. Conflict, Secularism, and Toleration  95
Uday S. Mehta
5. Representative Democracy and Religious Thought in South
Asia: Abul A‘la Maududi and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar  114
Humeira Iqtidar

I I . G E N E A L O G I E S O F S TAT E A N D R E L IG IO N

6. Religious Pluralism and the State in India: Toward a Typology  139

Rochana Bajpai
7. Is Turkey a Postsecular Society? Secular Differentiation, Committed
Pluralism, and Complementary Learning in Contemporary Turkey  157
Ateş Altınordu
8. The Meaning of Religious Freedom: From Ireland and India to the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan  178
Matthew J. Nelson
9. The Limits of Pluralism: A Perspective on Religious Freedom in
Indian Constitutional Law  203
Mathew John
viii Contents

10. Plurality and Pluralism: Democracy, Religious Difference, and

Political Imagination  221
Sudipta Kaviraj

I I I . V IO L E N C E A N D D OM I NAT IO N

11. Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws versus Religious pluralism  251

Fatima Y. Bokhari
12. Changing Modalities of Violence: Lessons from Hindu Nationalist
India  277
Amrita Basu
13. Legal Contention and Minorities in Turkey: The Case of the Kurds
and Alevis  301
Senem Aslan
14. “Stranger, Enemy”: Anti-​Shia Hostility and Annihilatory Politics
in Pakistan  322
Nosheen Ali
15. Thinking through Majoritarian Domination in Turkey and India  342
Karen Barkey and Vatsal Naresh

Index  367
 Acknowledgments

This project began with a generous grant from the Henry Luce Foundation.
Alfred C. Stepan inspired and supported it from inception. Toby Volkman
watched over this project with attentive care throughout.
Our first meeting was held at Columbia University, under the auspices of
the Center for Democracy, Toleration and Religion (CDTR), in 2016. Some of
our wonderful collaborators participants there and at our second meeting at
Berkeley indelibly shaped this volume for the better, and we gratefully acknowl-
edge their contribution: Asad Q. Ahmed, Manan Ahmed, Yesim Arat, Koray
Çaliskan, Thomas Blom Hansen, Mehdi Hasan, Suat Kiniklioglu, Ravish Kumar,
Basharat Peer, Raka Ray, Senator Sherry Rehman, Yasmin Saikia, Tolga Tanis,
Mark Taylor, and Ozan Varol.
The team at CDTR made the laborious task of conference-​organising a gen-
uinely enjoyable exercise. Without Jessica Lilien’s ingenuity and meticulous
attention to detail, this project would never have taken off. Mariam Elnozahy
and Menna El-​Sayed’s crucial assistance, academic and logistical, brought cheer
when it was most needed. We also thank the department of Middle Eastern,
South Asian and African Studies at Columbia University for their financial
support.
We continued the project under the auspices of Social Science Matrix at
University of California-​Berkeley. There, Erica Browne and Dasom Nah pro-
vided stellar logistical and editorial assistance. The collaboration would not have
continued without the financial and intellectual backing of the Haas Institute
for a Fair and Inclusive Society (now the Othering and Belonging Institute). We
thank John Powell, Taeku Lee, Raka Ray, and Eva Seto.
Bhawna Parmar worked with us patiently to illustrate a thoughtful book cover.
Holly Mitchell at OUP was the epitome of forbearance in seeing us through.
We thank her and David McBride, as well as the team at Newgen.
 Contributors

Nosheen Ali is a sociologist serving as Global Faculty-​in-​Residence at the Gallatin

School, New York University. Ali works on state-​making, ecology and Muslim cul-
tural politics with a focus on Pakistan and Kashmir. Her book Delusional States: Feeling
Rule and Development in Pakistan's Northern Frontier (Cambridge University Press,
2019) examines state power and social struggle in Gilgit-​Baltistan, a contested border
zone that forms part of disputed Kashmir. Ali is the founder of Umangpoetry, a digital
humanities endeavor for documenting contemporary poetic knowledges in South Asia,
and Karti Dharti, an alternative space for ecological inquiry.

Ateş Altınordu is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Sabancı University, Istanbul. His

work focuses on religion and politics, secularization and secularism, and the cul-
tural sociology of contemporary Turkish politics. His articles have been published in
the Annual Review of Sociology, Politics and Society, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und
Sozialpyschologie, and Qualitative Sociology.

Senem Aslan is Associate Professor of Politics at Bates College. She was previously a post-
doctoral fellow in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University be-
tween 2008 and 2010. Dr. Aslan’s book Nation-​Building in Turkey and Morocco: Governing
Kurdish and Berber Dissent, was published by Cambridge University Press in 2014. Her
other works have been published in the International Journal of Middle East Studies,
Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, Nationalities Papers, Oxford Handbook of Turkish Politics,
and the European Journal of Turkish Studies. At Bates, she teaches courses on Middle East
politics, state-​building, and nationalism. Her recent research focuses on the different
governments’ politics of symbolism and imagery in Turkey.

Rochana Bajpai is Associate Professor of Politics at SOAS University of London. She is

the author of Debating Difference: Group Rights and Liberal Democracy in India (Oxford
University Press 2011, sixth impression). Dr Bajpai has published widely on the Indian
Constituent Assembly debates; conceptions of secularism and minority rights; debates on
social justice and affirmative action in India and Malaysia. Her current project focusses
on the theory and practice of political representation, with reference to minority repre-
sentation in Indian Parliament. Dr Bajpai is a founding member of the SOAS Centre for
Comparative Political Thought and a co-convenor of the London Comparative Political
Thought Group.

Karen Barkey is the Haas Distinguished Chair of Religious Diversity at the Othering &
Belonging Institute and Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley.
She is also the Director of the Center for the Study of Democracy, Toleration, and
Religion (CDTR). Barkey’s books include Shared Sacred Sites: A Contemporary Pilgrimage
(2018, with Dionigi Albera and Manoël Pénicaud), Choreographies of Shared Sacred
xii Contributors

Sites: Religion, Politics, and Conflict Resolution (2014, co-​edited with Elazar Barkan),
Empire of Diversity (2008), and Bandits and Bureaucrats (1996).

Amrita Basu is Domenic J. Paino 1955 Professor of Political Science, and Sexuality,
Women’s and Gender Studies at Amherst College. Her scholarship explores women’s
­activism, feminist movements, and religious nationalism in South Asia. Her most
­recent book, Violent Conjunctures in Democratic India (Cambridge University Press,
2015), explores when and why Hindu nationalists engage in violence against religious
­minorities. She is also the author of Two Faces of Protest: Contrasting Modes of Women’s
Activism in India (1992) and has edited several anthologies which focus on women’s
­activism and movements across the globe.

Fatima Y. Bokhari is a legal practitioner and researcher with over a decade of experience
working on criminal justice reform, focusing on gender rights and legal empowerment of
marginalized groups. At present, she leads Musawi –​an independent research organiza-
tion in Pakistan, which works to support government and non-​government stakeholders
to affect evidence-​based legal and policy reforms.

Faisal Devji is a Professor in History and Fellow of St Antony’s College at the University of
Oxford, where he is also the Director of the Asian Studies Centre. Dr. Devji is the author of
four books, Muslim Zion: Pakistan as a Political Idea (2013), The Impossible Indian: Gandhi
and the Temptation of Violence (2012), The Terrorist in Search of Humanity: Militant Islam
and Global Politics (2009), and Landscapes of the Jihad: Militancy, Morality, Modernity
(2005).

Humeira Iqtidar is a Reader in Politics at King’s College London. She is a co-​convenor of

the London Comparative Political Theory Workshop and editor of the McGill-​Queens
Studies in Modern Islamic Thought. She is the author of include Secularising Islamists?
(2011), and Tolerance, Secularisation and Democratic Politics in South Asia (2018, co-​
edited with Tanika Sarkar). Iqtidar is currently working on two projects. The first focuses
on non-​liberal conceptions of tolerance through an engagement with 20th century Islamic
thought. The second, titled Justice Beyond Rights, builds on her research with refugees and
migrants from the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Mathew John is Professor and Executive Director at the Centre on Public Law and
Jurisprudence at Jindal Global Law School. He has graduate degrees in law from the
National Law School, Bangalore and the University of Warwick, and completed his doc-
toral work at the London School of Economics on the impact of secularism on Indian con-
stitutional practice. He has previously worked at the Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore
on social justice lawyering; he was a law and culture fellow at the Centre for the Study of
Culture and Society, Bangalore; and has been a visiting fellow at the Centre for the Study
of Law and Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Sudipta Kaviraj is Professor of Indian Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia

University in the City of New York. Kaviraj’s books include The Imaginary Institution
 Contributors xiii

of India (2010), Civil Society: History and Possibilities co-​edited with Sunil Khilnani
(2001), Politics in India (edited, 1999), and The Unhappy Consciousness: Bankimchandra
Chattopadhyay and the Formation of Nationalist Discourse in India (1995).

Uday S. Mehta is Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the Graduate

Center –​City University of New York. He is the author of two books, The Anxiety of
Freedom: Imagination and Individuality in the Political Thought of John Locke (1992) and
Liberalism and Empire: Nineteenth Century British Liberal Thought (2000), and is cur-
rently completing a book on M. K. Gandhi’s critique of political rationality.

Vatsal Naresh is a PhD student in Political Science at Yale University. His research focuses
on democratic theory, political violence, constitutionalism, and South Asian politics.
Naresh co-edited Constituent Assemblies (Cambridge University Press 2018, with Jon
Elster, Roberto Gargarella, and Bjorn-Erik Rasch).

Matthew J. Nelson is Professor of Politics at SOAS University of London. His first book
In the Shadow of Shari‘ah: Islam, Islamic Law, and Democracy in Pakistan was published
in 2011 (Columbia University Press). Dr Nelson is a founding member of the Centre for
Comparative Political Thought and the Centre for the International Politics of Conflict,
Rights, and Justice at SOAS. His current research focuses on comparative constitutional
politics and the politics of sectarian and doctrinal diversity in Islamic law and education.

Christine Philliou is Associate Professor of History at the University of California,

Berkeley. She is the author of Biography of an Empire: Governing Ottomans in an Age
of Revolution (University of California Press, 2011) and Turkey: A Past Against History
(University of California Press, 2021). Philliou’s next book, "The Post-​Ottoman World,"
looks at the death of the Ottoman Empire through the lens of Greek and Turkish nation-​
state formation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Sadia Saeed is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of San Francisco. She
is the author of Politics of Desecularization: Law and the Minority Question in Pakistan
(Cambridge, 2017). Saeed is currently working on a book manuscript on the triangular
relationship between sovereignty, law and religious difference in pre-​modern Muslim
societies.
 Itineraries of Democracy and
Religious Plurality
Karen Barkey, Sudipta Kaviraj, and Vatsal Naresh

I.1 Introduction

This volume focuses on the relation between the functioning of democracy and
the prior existence of religious plurality in three societies outside the West: India,
Pakistan, and Turkey. The existing literature on “the spread of democracy” relies
primarily on the power or the example of the West for democratic government
to spread to other societies. The intellectual and sociocultural traditions of spe-
cific societies are rarely analyzed in detail. Often discussions of democracy ex-
amine how individual religious traditions relate to the demands of democratic
politics: is Islam or Hinduism conducive to or compatible with democracy? The
central question we seek to address in this volume is different. Democracy is cen-
trally concerned with political pluralism in many ways. Democratic procedures
of collective decision-​making presuppose a social condition in which dif-
ferent, often conflicting social interests press a plurality of demands on the
state. Constitutional features of democracy—​like freedom of expression and
association—​contribute to a situation where the those who exercise power lack
the capacity to stamp out different points of view. It is only recently that Western
European countries have had to recognize and rethink the role of religious and
ethnic pluralism in the unfolding of democratic decision-​making. In many
non-​Western countries, adaptation to democratic politics has meant struggling
with the legacy of historical religious pluralism since before modern states were
established.
Early scholars of democracy primarily examined divergences of constitu-
tional legal design—​presidential or parliamentary forms, or federal or unitary
structures—​across a range of countries in the modern West that were similar
in the sociological composition of their electorates, and had similar historical
traditions drawn from the settlement of Westphalia. In sociological terms, these
states were relatively homogeneous: some were so as a result of the powerful, co-
ercive, violent processes following the rise of the modern state system. This set-
tlement encouraged the creation of religiously unified polities. In the nineteenth

Karen Barkey, Sudipta Kaviraj, and Vatsal Naresh, Itineraries of Democracy and Religious Plurality In: Negotiating
Democracy and Religious Pluralism. Edited by: Karen Barkey, Sudipta Kaviraj, and Vatsal Naresh, Oxford University Press.
© Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197530016.003.0001
2 Negotiating Democracy and Religious Pluralism

century, these states developed strong nationalist sentiments around a single lan-
guage, religion, culture, and history—​all included in the standard definitions of
the nation-​state. As modernization theory became dominant after the Second
World War, the non-​Western world was deemed both more backward and bound
to follow in the footsteps of the West through sheer cultural imitation (see, for
example, Apter 1965; Geertz 1963; Lerner 1958; Rudolph and Rudolph 1967). As
a project, the study of democracy now has to deal with a much wider and conse-
quently more diverse world; the present challenge of democratic government is
far more complex. Academic research in the past decades has gradually formed
a picture of democratic systems that is more critical and has expanded its study
to a larger variety of cases. Consequently, explaining variations in democratic
experience requires close attention to the sociological structure of each society
in which democratic politics operates, and to the historical traditions of political
life. This volume contributes to this new line of enquiry into comparative politics
with a deeper critical historical understanding.
In parallel, scholars of religious history and intellectual historians have also
questioned the Enlightenment conception of religious traditions as merely su-
perstitious and uniformly exclusivist. The concisely simple philosophy of history
that underpinned traditional studies of politics saw the rise of European mo-
dernity as the emergence of a uniquely rationalistic civilization that spread in-
tellectual enlightenment and introduced ideas of human dignity against other
religious cultures that were discriminatory and intolerant. Comparative his-
torical sociology today is obliged to reopen these assumptions and re-​examine
questions about the historical trajectories of politics in different parts of the
world. As it has embarked on this analysis of varieties of historical trajecto-
ries and conceptions of religious history, comparative historical sociology has
pioneered a richer and more capacious field of study. This collection of chapter
represents the extension of such an expansion of the fields of study linking reli-
gious traditions to political outcomes.
In the countries of interest, Turkey, India, and Pakistan, religious plu-
ralism was part of successful accommodation in the past. Under new political
arrangements, religious pluralism has come under severe threat. With the rise
of majoritarian domination, the future of pluralism, tolerance, and democratic
norms is in peril. It is this particular theoretical and comparative concern, from
the transition to modern statehood to the present day, that has directed the work
of this volume. In this introduction, we begin by discussing critical theoretical
and methodological issues that such comparative historical work should ad-
dress. We then present the historical arcs of Pakistan, India, and Turkey before
their transition to modern statehood to serve as a framing tool for the chapters in
the volume. Finally, we speak to a series of contemporary questions that present
themselves through the analysis of the three cases.
 Itineraries of Democracy and Religious Plurality 3

I.2 Concepts

Social science analysis of historical processes like the establishment of demo-

cratic government or religious change and secularization—​the two processes
this volume is concerned with—​must use a preformed language of social sci-
ence theory. Its central concepts, such as calling economic changes “capitalist
industrialization,” or labeling religious transformations “secularization,” are pre-
dominantly drawn from analytical reflections on nineteenth-​century European
history—​the only theater of serious social science discussion at that time.
One of the major problems of modern social science is the way such theoret-
ical constructs are used for comparative historical analysis. In the first stage of
the development of social science, historical disciplines engaged in two kinds
of cognitive and epistemic activities: first, empirical descriptions of social pro-
cesses, followed by the production of theoretical constructs as such empirical
information accumulated and became more elaborate. Theoretical concepts like
secularization, disenchantment, and the rise of capitalism were all products of
this second intellectual practice. In the next century and beyond, social scientific
inquiry expanded exponentially across the globe incorporating historical know-
ledge about cultures, societies, states, and institutions outside Western Europe.
A central shortcoming of this process of the cognitive expansion of social sci-
ence was the asymmetry of the two levels. While empirical historical research
became increasingly expansive, the corpus of theoretical concepts remained re-
stricted to the original cluster devised mainly in the classical phase of theoretical
development. Social science thinking developed a strange “triangular” structure.
The theoretical constructs used were invariably drawn from European theo-
retical models of development of capitalism, the modern state, secularization,
and urbanism. Instead of looking for new constructs of theory, rich empirical
material and historical evidence were sought to be forced into the theoretical
constructs drawn from early modern social theory. This theoretical problem
works sometimes at an even deeper level, as empirical descriptions of social re-
ality cannot use a theory-​independent language; and the obligatory use of the
conventional language obstructs a clearer apprehension of reality or obfuscates
understandings of real patterns in historical events. Studies in our collection il-
lustrate the necessity of greater awareness of these questions for social theory. In
this section, we examine the conceptual foundations that initiated the collabo-
rative project: the internal heterogeneity of democracy; pluralism; and identity;
and a particular consequence of their mixture, “majorities” and “minorities.”
An interesting feature of scholarly literature on democracy is that democracy
itself is rarely historicized. The standard procedure for the analysis of democracy
and its historical tribulations is to focus on a constitution that is viewed as dem-
ocratic and to record occasional decline and the rise of authoritarian rule in its
4 Negotiating Democracy and Religious Pluralism

place. However, a closer reading of the internal records of all democratic societies
should promote a more intrinsically historical approach to the existence of de-
mocracy itself. Society does not become uniformly democratic for all its citizens
simply by the adoption of a universal franchise or competitive elections, even
on a procedural account. It is a historical fact that legal frames engage citizens
in self-​rule and protect groups from arbitrary power to quite different degrees.
Democracy is an internally uneven system in practically all its real incarnations.
Democracy—​if it indicates a political experience of procedural equality, the se-
cure enjoyment of rights, and protection from avoidable, arbitrary power—​is
internally heterogeneous in all instances across various criteria—​in terms of
class, caste, region, and historical period. Democracy in Britain in the 1950s
and 1960s incorporated the government of Northern Ireland, where Catholics
suffered forms of legalized exclusion. That Black Americans in the United States
were widely disenfranchised, could not enter restaurants, or ride in front seats of
buses in the postwar decades did not lead political scientists to declare America
a non-​democratic polity. Northern Ireland—​like Kashmir in South Asia—​is
an example of regional unevenness in the enjoyment of democratic rights. The
treatment of African Americans—​like Dalits in India or Ahmadis in Pakistan—​
is illustrative of the domination of persons along the lines of race, caste, and re-
ligion. The case of Dalits in India reveals further that even when there is legal
equality, the practical enjoyment of democratic rights can be uneven. Similarly,
for Alevis and Kurds in Turkey, democratic rights are unevenly distributed
and enjoyed. While some scholars, especially in comparative politics, view the
process of democratization to be complete upon the institution of competitive
elections, we posit that it continues as a process thereafter as well.
The institutional requirement in a democratic constitution of abstractly equal
rights can work against domination. Excluded groups can use the declared prin-
ciples of democratic constitutions to protest against domination, often allowing
them to achieve actual improvement in their political condition. Democracy re-
mains an ideal: a political system can slide toward lesser or greater enjoyment
of actual democratic rights by ordinary people across a scale. A realistic picture
of democracy can only arise if this internal unevenness and heterogeneity is ac-
knowledged and recorded in our political analyses. This collection tries to un-
derstand how the internal heterogeneity of democracy affects the prospects of
pluralism and vice versa in Pakistan, India, and Turkey.
Pluralism, the other central concept of this volume, also requires defini-
tion. Pluralism does not inevitably follow from plurality. Sudipta Kaviraj (in his
chapter) defines religious plurality as “the brute fact of existing differences be-
tween religious groups,” whereas religious pluralism refers to a “cognitive and
ethical attitude . . . allowing all faith-​groups to practice their religious life without
hindrance from other faiths or from the state.” Where diversity and difference
 Itineraries of Democracy and Religious Plurality 5

are endemic, pluralism, as a politically accommodative recognition of difference,

can reduce the possibility of domination.
The term “identity” itself—​which plays such an essential role in all our
chapters—​requires a clearer and more refined definition. In our analysis, the idea
of identity always has at least two meanings: the identity of the individual, and
the identity of the collectivity. Under modern conditions, identity becomes vital
in both senses, because modernity transforms both types of identity and gives
them a new intensity. Modern individuals are incited to choose their identities
by the constant interpellation of intellectual forces and modern institutions,
acting most powerfully through their peers. Even if individualism is not widely
embraced as a moral-​philosophical ideal, waves of influence of liberalism, so-
cialism, and other modernist political ideologies usually encourage a strong
emphasis on the individual’s selection of positions. Yet many of these modern
ideologies urge modern assertive individuals to view themselves as members of
a large, agentive collective identity—​like the nation, or the people, or the reli-
gious community, or regional culture. Political modernity might contribute to
the intensification of both senses of community—​individual and collective. This
is particularly true because in many cases, the politically assertive individual
chooses a collective identity—​like the nation, people, or religious community—​
to mark herself. Identification with a larger collective identity—​which a person
considers imperiled, or from which a person draws sustenance—​is often folded
into the making of individual identity itself.
A persistent difficulty with identity is that self-​identification is usually in-
extricably linked to other-​identification as well. The self—​especially collective
ones—​tends to be identified by attributes that are marked off against others. In
this sense, identities are relational. Consider the demands to define “Muslim”
in a restrictive fashion in Pakistan, which pushed Ahmadis outside its bound-
aries. The Ahmadis—​when they defined themselves—​did not see the boundaries
falling that way. But modern identities are ordinarily political—​in the sense that
our identity is constituted by what we think we are, but also by what others think
we are. Moreover, since their thinking is reflected in their acting toward us in a
particular way, it forces us to take that view of ourselves into account, and act
back toward it. Conceptions of identities are, in this sense, generally agentive.
The complex interactions between different religious communities—​through
their self-​definition and other-​definition—​chronicled in the studies included
in this volume raise the question of reviewing the conceptual grids that social
scientists employ.
When situated in the discourse of modern government, the distinction be-
tween majorities and minorities emerges as a prism for understanding political
conflict. Varying ideas of popular sovereignty and nationalism encourage the be-
lief that the state “belongs” to its people. If the people have internal divisions,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Daily Mirror Photograph.

NURSE CAVELL IN HER GARDEN.

 Photo Copyright
Farringdon Photo Company.

NURSE CAVELL, FROM A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN IN

BRUSSELS.
Consternation and horror expressed themselves in every part of
the world. The Staats Zeitung, the Germans’ newspaper in New York
which defended the sinking of the “Lusitania,” disowned the crime.
“This is savagery,” said neutral Holland. “The killing of Miss Cavell
will be more expensive than the loss of many regiments,” said a
great American journal. “The peace of the future would be
incomplete and precarious,” wrote the Paris Figaro, “if crimes like
these escaped the justice of peoples.” The King and Parliament gave
voice to England’s sentiment.
Yet the Germans were so little conscious of what they had done
that they made the deed blacker by excuses. “We hope it will serve
as a warning to the Belgians,” wrote the Berlin official paper, the
Vossische Zeitung. “I know of no law in the world which makes
distinction between the sexes,” said Herr Zimmermann, the Kaiser’s
Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. And they filled the cup of their
infamy by refusing to surrender Nurse Cavell’s body to her friends.
It is fitting that there should be some personal memorial to this
heroic life. One such, by the thoughtful initiative of Queen Alexandra,
is to be provided in the shape of an Edith Cavell Nursing Home at
the London Hospital where Miss Cavell was trained. The Nursing
Mirror, for which she wrote her last article, urges the institution of a
Cavell Cross for Heroism, a decoration for women only.
An Empire Day of Homage has been proposed. A great national
memorial service has been held in St. Paul’s Cathedral.
But the best memorial to Edith Cavell will be the determination of
her fellow-citizens to put aside self in willing service to their country.
 APPENDIX.

SIR EDWARD GREY’S SCATHING COMMENT.

Sir Edward Grey to the American Ambassador in
London.
Foreign Office, October 20th, 1915.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs presents his
compliments to the United States Ambassador, and has the honour
to acknowledge the receipt of His Excellency’s note of the 18th
instant enclosing a copy of a despatch from the United States
Minister at Brussels respecting the execution of Miss Edith Cavell at
that place.
Sir E. Grey is confident that the news of the execution of this noble
Englishwoman will be received with horror and disgust not only in the
Allied States, but throughout the civilised world.
Miss Cavell was not even charged with espionage, and the fact
that she had nursed numbers of wounded German soldiers might
have been regarded as a complete reason in itself for treating her
with leniency.
The attitude of the German authorities is, if possible, rendered
worse by the discreditable efforts successfully made by the officials
of the German Civil Administration at Brussels to conceal the fact
that sentence had been passed and would be carried out
immediately. These efforts were no doubt prompted by the
determination to carry out the sentence before an appeal from the
finding of the court-martial could be made to a higher authority, and
show in the clearest manner that the German authorities concerned
were well aware that the carrying out of the sentence was not
warranted by any consideration.
Further comment on their proceedings would be superfluous.
In conclusion, Sir E. Grey would request Mr. Page to express to
Mr. Whitlock and the staff of the United States Legation at Brussels
the grateful thanks of His Majesty’s Government for their untiring
efforts on Miss Cavell’s behalf. He is fully satisfied that no stone was
left unturned to secure for Miss Cavell a fair trial, and when sentence
had been pronounced a mitigation thereof.
Sir E. Grey realises that Mr. Whitlock was placed in a very
embarrassing position by the failure of the German authorities to
inform him that the sentence had been passed and would be carried
out at once. In order, therefore, to forestall any unjust criticism which
might be made in this country he is publishing Mr. Whitlock’s
despatch to Mr. Page without delay.
 THE GERMAN OFFICIAL DEFENCE.
Statement by Herr Zimmermann, German Under-
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
It is indeed hard that a woman has to be executed, but think what
a State is to come to which is at war if it allows to pass unnoticed a
crime against the safety of its armies because it is committed by
women. No law book in the world, least of all those dealing with war
regulations, makes such a differentiation, and the female sex has but
one preference according to legal usage, namely, that women in a
delicate condition may not be executed. Otherwise a man and
woman are equal before the law, and only the degree of guilt makes
a difference in the sentence for a crime and its consequences.
In the Cavell case all the circumstances are so clear and
convincing that no court-martial in the world could have reached any
other decision. For it concerns not the act of one single person, but
rather a well-thought-out, world-wide conspiracy, which succeeded
for nine months in rendering the most valuable service to the enemy,
to the disadvantage of our army.

Severity the Only Way.

Countless British, Belgian and French soldiers are now again
fighting in the Allies’ ranks who owe their escape from Belgium to the
activity of the band now sentenced, at the head of which stood Miss
Cavell.
With such a situation under the very eyes of the authorities only
the utmost severity can bring relief, and a Government violates the
most elementary duty towards its army that does not adopt the
strictest measures. These duties in war are greater than any other.
 All those convicted were fully cognisant of the significance of their
actions. The court went into just this point with particular care, and
acquitted several co-defendants because it believed a doubt existed
regarding their knowledge of the penalties for their actions.
I admit, certainly, that the motive of those convicted was not
unnoble, that they acted out of patriotism; but in war time one must
be ready to seal one’s love of Fatherland with one’s blood.

To Frighten the Others.

Once for all, the activity of our enemies has been stopped, and the
sentence has been carried out to frighten those who might presume
on their sex to take part in enterprises punishable with death. Should
one recognise these presumptions it would open the door for the evil
activities of women, who often are handier and cleverer in these
things than the craftiest spy.
If the others are shown mercy it will be at the cost of our army, for
it is to be feared that new attempts will be made to injure us if it is
believed that escape without punishment is possible or with the risk
of only a light sentence.
Only pity for the guilty can lead to a commutation. It will not be an
admission that the executed sentence was too severe, for this, harsh
as it may sound, was absolutely just, and could not appear otherwise
to an independent judge.
It is asserted that the soldiers told off to carry out the execution
refused at first to shoot, and finally fired so faultily that an officer had
to kill the accused with his revolver.
No word of this is true. I have an official report of the execution, in
which it is established that it took place entirely in accordance with
the established regulations, and that death occurred immediately
after the first volley, as the physician present attests.
W., L. & Co., Printers, Clifton House, Worship St., E.C.
Telephone No. 3121 London Wall.
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE
MARTYRDOM OF NURSE CAVELL ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
 copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.