Can you imagine a secularism that does not give you the freedom to keep the name you are identified with, wear the dress you are used to, change the language you communicate in? In what ways do you think Ataturk's secularism is different from Indian secularism?
(i) Yes, such a form of secularism existed in Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. This version of secularism involved active intervention in and suppression of religion rather than principled distance from it. Ataturk banned the Fez, a traditional cap worn by Muslims, through the Hat Law. He changed his own name from Mustafa Kemal Pasha to Kemal Ataturk. Western clothing was encouraged, the Western calendar replaced the traditional Turkish calendar, and a new Turkish alphabet was adopted. This secularism did not give people the freedom to keep their traditional names, wear their customary dress, or continue using their traditional language and script.
(ii) Ataturk's secularism differs from Indian secularism in significant ways. Ataturk's version involved hostility towards religion and aggressive suppression of religious practices. It aimed for a complete break with traditional thinking and expressions. In contrast, Indian secularism, as envisioned by Nehru, did not mean hostility to religion. While Nehru did not practise any religion, he believed a secular state could interfere in matters of religion to bring about social reform. Indian secularism focuses on inter-religious equality and is concerned with intra-religious domination. It allows the state to either disengage with religion or engage with it if required. The Indian state is neither theocratic nor has it established any religion, but it has enacted laws for social reform like abolishing untouchability, child marriage, and sati. Unlike Ataturk's approach of suppression, Indian secularism maintains principled distance from organised religion while permitting state-supported religious reform.
Explanation
This question tests students' understanding of different models of secularism. The textbook contrasts Ataturk's aggressive, interventionist secularism with India's more flexible approach. Ataturk's model suppressed religious expression through bans on traditional clothing, names, and language. Indian secularism, conversely, opposes communalism while allowing state intervention for social reform within religions. Key distinctions include: Ataturk's hostility vs. Nehru's non-hostile approach; suppression vs. principled distance; forced modernization vs. state-supported reform; and the Indian focus on both inter-religious equality and intra-religious domination.
Solution Steps
Step 1: Identify the nature of Ataturk's secularism from the context - active intervention and suppression of religion, banning traditional practices.
Step 2: List specific examples of restrictions under Ataturk - name changes, Fez ban, Western clothing, calendar and alphabet changes.
Step 3: Contrast with Indian secularism - Nehru's non-hostile approach, opposition to communalism, state intervention for social reform.
Step 4: Highlight key differences - suppression vs. principled distance, hostility vs. reform-oriented engagement, focus on equality and dignity.