The Place of Debate

Re: YLH

``...More accurately Jinnah wanted reserved seats for Muslims and other minorities plus joint electorates...``

If that (and only that) is indeed the case, then I would not have much trouble disagreeing with him. (You need to explain the mechanics of reserved seats plus joint electorates -- does it mean that from certain constituencies all parties could field only candidates of a certain religion? If so, this is not too different from the reserved constituency system prevalent in India, and the electoral redistricting process in the US). Is it not the case that he went from that demand to a `homeland` demand later? In any case, it is pointless for Indians and Pakistanis to now denigrate each others leaders. The reality is that in a slave nation, where the British were in a position to aggravate differences, the indigenous leaders did the best they could under the circumstances, but the problems that they faced were larger than them. In any case, my history books in high school in India did not dwell upon these issues much (although they did not denigrate Jinnah). I wish they did -- there are important lessons for all of us. Perhaps, the subject is too complicated for 9th-10th graders.

Re: YLH

Oops! I meant to say ``..then I would not have much trouble AGREEING with him...``

THE MEANING OF SECULARISM:

Romair,

Allah ka wasta hai, read what I am writing instead of going on with your own monologues. Your question about whether the word `secular` was mentioned ... it sounds like an Ignorant Mullah`s question ... because you keep equating `secularism` with `westernization`.

I see that you are Still harping the same tune eh? I have asked you a simple question : What do you think `secularism` means?

Now, let me offer you a definition:

1) Equal Rights for all

2) Separation of Church and state ie the state should be impartial towards all faiths.

3) Non-theocratic

4) Sovereignty belonging to the people.

Now my Question is:

Do you or do you not agree with the above? Whether or not Pakistanis declare anything else the abovementioned are fundamental principles of a Modern State and without it a Modern State cannot be Modern.

Now did Jinnah mention these four things which are the definition of secularism:

For Number 1 I have already posted 20 different times he spoke of equal rights, and he did it in practise by resigning from the League and appointing as the first `Law` Minister of Pakistan a Hindu. Now I don`t need to explain to you what the importance of Law is in Islam.

For Number 2 Jinnah`s repeated suppression of resolutions to make Sharia the law of the land as he did so as early as the 1943 league session, is clear on this matter.

For Number 3 Jinnah`s statements `Pakistan will not be a theocratic state` are clear... now please explain to me what the opposite of `theocratic` is if its not secular?

For Number 4: The new state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of their religion, caste or creed.

(Jinnah to Doon Campbell 21st May 1947)

I am sure you do. Then what do you think `secularism` is.

You declare : `I am not scared of secularism or religionism`

That is exactly it: Secularism is not the opposite of religionism. Yet you keep putting it in opposite realms. Just as Indians are wrong in confusing `secularism` with `secular nationalism` or `Multiculturalism, you are confusing `secularism` with `secular humanism` and/or `western-ism`.

Learn to distinguish between these concepts: Secularism, western-ism, secular Nationalism, secular humanism ...



JINNAH`S EXAMPLE

Jinnah ate Pork and drank Whisky hence he was a `westernized` Muslim ...

Jinnah championed Hindu Muslim Unity from 1906-1940...

From 1906-1924: His Politics were based on Secular Nationalism ie Indians are Indians and religion has no political implications. Hence he steadfastly opposed Gandhi`s championing of the Khilafat Movement, which to him was incomprehensible since he did not have any particular affection for his non-Indian co-religionists.

From 1924-1940: His politics were based on the minority-ism and communal rights. After experiencing the horrors of the ill timed Khilafat Movement to which Jinnah was opposed, Jinnah came to terms with the identities of Muslims and Hindus as distinct political groups if not nations. Hence in this period Jinnah focused his energies in achieving Hindu Muslim Unity by bringing Hindus and Muslims to a parity at the center. The best word for this phase is multiculturalism.

1940-1947: Jinnah esposed a cultural Muslim Nationalism of sorts, contending that Indian Muslims constituted a nation unto its own. Now this `nationalism` in of its own had nothing to do with religion since there were `Muslims` who didn`t believe in God or the Quran in the Pakistan movement as well.. they were `Atheists` who espoused a cultural Muslim Identity so to speak, which has come through due to various antagonism in the Indian History ie Hindi vs Urdu, Sir Syed`s western-ism, Hindu vs Muslim conflict over the centuries etc. In essence it is more accurate to say : AIML`s slogan was `Muslims in danger` instead of `Islam in Danger` .. there is a big difference between the two. The former deals with the secular issues such as social, economic and political well being which was the main concern of the League, whereas the latter espoused by religious organizations deals more with the theological and spiritual well being, which is the reason why the religious organizations were opposed to the creation of Pakistan.

1947-1948 was the only period Jinnah was in a position to espouse `secularism` which is the separation of church and state. `Secularism` is never espoused by a politician perse.. Secularism is always the creed of the state, whether the

state is demographically Muslim or heterogenous.

So in conclusion, Jinnah was a secular Indian Nationalist in his early political career, a muslim nationalist of sorts in his later political career, and a `secularist` as the Governor General of Pakistan, and he was a westernized Muslim all through his life..



KEMAL ATATURK`S EXAMPLE

Now let us come to Kemal Ataturk, the other famous secularist of the Muslim World.

Ataturk was a Secularist but Was Kemal Ataturk a `secular` nationalist? No. His Turk Nationalism was based on the Muslims of Anatolya. Infact the tranfer of population with Greece took place on the principle of ethnicity being based on religion. His Turk nationalism which he used pre-Turkish Republic days was an exclusively Muslim Nationalism which again had nothing to do with religion but with the Muslim identity which had merged with the turkish identity, so much so that Turk and Muslim are used interchangeably in medieval and post renaissance christian chroniclers.

Was Ataturk`s `westernization` his secular credential then? No. That was a cultural change which he thought was necessary and had good reasons for it. It had nothing to do with secularism. Was Ataturk`s `nationalization` of Islam secular. If anything that was the farthest thing from secularism.

Then why is Kemal Ataturk a `secularist`? Not because he ordered everyone to wear western clothes but because he instituted the following reforms:

1) He declared (much like Jinnah) that sovereignty rests with the people of Turkey unconditionally.

2) He abolished the religious courts and instituted Modern legal system.

3) He instituted a `secular` school system where religion was not taught.

4) He abolished Polygamy and gave women equal rights.

This is what `secularism` means. Not that Ataturk was an alcoholic, but that Ataturk instituted the above mentioned, with which no modern Muslim can disagree and this and this alone is why I admire him... not because he westernized turkey, but because he instituted the abovementioned.



MUNIR REPORT ON JINNAH`S VISION OF PAKISTAN

1. The Quaid-i-Azam has said that in the new state sovereignty would rest with the people. The Resolution starts with the statement that sovereignty rests with Allah. This concept negates the basic idea of modern democracy that there are no limits on the legislative power of a representative assembly.

2. There is a reference to the protection of the minorities of their right to worship and practice their religion, whereas the Quaid-i-Azam had stated that there would be no minorities on the basis of religion.

3. The distinction between religious majorities and minorities takes away from the minority, the right of equality, which again is a basic idea of modern democracy.

4. The provision relating to Muslims being enabled to lead their life according to Islam is opposed to the conception of a secular state.

A note to the last post: The Munir Report is describing how Objectives Resolution is in contrast to Jinnah`s vision of Pakistan.

shammi

In order to understand my view on Jinnah`s transformations from secular Indian Nationalism to Minority-ism to Muslim Nationalism and then finally to secularism after the creation of Pakistan.. please read my response to Romair.

Thankyou

Sincerely

YLH

Akash,

``Whenever one goes to the original source to find the truthfullness of ylh`s comments, what one finds is a ``little different`` version of the story and in a ``little different`` context that significantly alters the meaning of the lines.``

Seems like you have aptly described the modus operandi of your pal Harimau, the uncle educated in nehru`s time. I challenge you to show me once where I have done that. But you can`t because you are making these statements off your head even though you are too naive to understand the complexities of history.

If you can`t prove such nonsense which you can`t obviously, then stop making such stupid statements about me. What is it with you Indians... if you can`t discredit the argument, you start discrediting the person?

Akash to Harimau,

``Your arguments are impressive.``

Yes they are impressive lies and fallacies, which many indians and other non Pakistanis also have exposed on the other board. His switching of names, his mis-quotes and selective quotes, and the discord between the original arguments and his so called `facts` clearly show his `impressive` argument. Harimau has employed every trick in the book, and like `Janu German` has succeeded in brainwashing naive minds like that of Akash`s.

`` No matter how much one tries to obscure the fact,``

Yes no matter how hard Harimau tries to obscure the fact, the fact remains, that Jinnah`s contemporaries including Mr.Gandhi thought of Jinnah as self less, brave and incorruptible.

``it clearly stands out that Jinnah wanted a separate country for ``Himself`` where his writ rules.``

Last time I checked the topic of discussion had nothing to do with Pakistan or why Jinnah made it but if Pakistan as a demographically Muslim Majority state can be a secular state and is it consistent with Islam? It is a discussion for the Muslim World itself and the struggle for Islam`s future. In any event, if Mr.Akash can put his money where is mouth is and show me how any of what Mr.Harimau has said or any facts what so ever which somehow prove that Jinnah was so power hungry that he gave up the Governorship of Indian provinces as early as 1930s and gave up the Prime Ministership in the 1940s of United India which would have been the largest democracy in the world anywhere for a measly 1 year in power as the Governor General of a Moth Eaten Pakistan... and he was so determined in his writ that he allowed his arch rivals the Mullahs to first come in Pakistan and then demonstrate in Karachi outside his government residence calling him Kafir. He was so determined to be the sole power broker, that instead of forcing a constitution on Pakistan, he allowed for deliberations in the constituent assembley (which I think he should have done) and when he and his colleagues fell out on the topic of the constitution, he just retreated to a hill top waiting to die.

Can anyone explain to me why Jinnah wanted this power? His own brother Ahmed Ali died in obscurity and relative poverty, how many palaces have Jinnah`s heirs made in Pakistan? So Jinnah made Pakistan, so that he could waste away his lungs by working away day and night in face of enormous difficulties and odds, especially when the great and mighty Congress Government decided to starve the people of Pakistan by witholding Pakistan`s 55 crores of Rupees which was Pakistan`s entire budget. Yes what power... that when Jinnah ordered the Pakistan Army to intervene in Kashmir against the imminent Indian invasion, the British Chief of staff taking orders from Dehli, refused to obey.

Yes your logic makes perfect sense. After all how can the notion of being the `first Asian Governor` of any province in the British Empire and possibly the first `Asian Viceroy` of British India, or being called Sir.M.A.Jinnah, or being the Prime Minister of United India compete with the governor generalship of a nascent state plagued with refugees and problems, starved off funds by power hungry congress politicians in Dehli for a whole 1 year.



Mashallah well Said Akash.. You are a genius.

From Dawn Today:

http://www.dawn.com/2002/02/06/letted.htm#1

Meaning of secularism

With regard to the ongoing debate about the Quaid-i-Azam`s vision, let us first be clear on the definition of secularism. Here I refer to the Qauid`s famous statement to the people of Australia in February 1948 which was also repeated to the people of the United States: ``Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be run by priests with a divine mission``.

This is as clear a statement of secularism as one can get anywhere. Secularism means separation of the church (i.e. clergy, religious leadership etc) from the state (political leadership). Nobody is stopping the political leadership from being religiously pious and abstain from making laws which might infringe upon the code of Islamic law. But the principle of secularism is impartiality of the state to any religion, caste or creed as enunciated by the Quaid-i-Azam when he said: ``You may belong to any religion, caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state``.

I also refer to the Quaid-i-Azam`s statement to Doon Campbell of Reuters on 21st May 1947: ``The new state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of their religion, caste or creed``.

So to state that Pakistan should be a secular state is not in any way a contradiction to its demographical and ideological status as the homeland for Muslims of South Asia. In his Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Allama Iqbal suggests that a true Islamic state has to be `essentially secular`. In his Allahabad address in 1930, he said: ``Nor should the Hindus fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim states will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such states``.

YASSER LATIF HAMDANI

NJ, USA

Urstruly, Zafar Al-Talib, Hamzad Afaqui, YLH, Romair, SaminaShah, Prem

Urstruly

It is always a rewarding experience conversing with you. In my opinion you are one of the most honest, most open, most thgoughtful interlocutors on Chowk. Your education in the sciences, your talent as an artist, your conscience, serves us admirably, as is reflected in the thoughtful and penetrating insights offered in your post with regard to “values and Character”.

I find little to object with in your post other than two aspects. The values you suggested define the West or America is an incomplete or partial list, and these values, indeed objective secularism does not make the claim that they are panacea for the human condition nor promise utopia. Second, most important you view these values from a traditional point of view, whereas in the calculus of a non-religious ethics. These are representations of cause and effect. This is in effect the divide between the traditional and post traditional worldview, between why and how. Both separate, yet valid within it’s own framework, even as they submit to our judgement.

With your kind permission, I would like to respond in a more general manner to the issues you have raised. Let us first agree that we discuss these under the rubric of negotiating a transition from a traditional to a post traditional society, here I have in mind transition to objective secularism and of ethics. Values, may be thought of as being of two kinds, those for the sake of which we live (Guiding values: Goodness, justice, generosity, courage, transcending social life, nationality, even history – they are eternal) and those values which exist for the sake of living (Serving values: rules of etiquette, pleasantries, moral obligations, respect of law). Serving values admit exceptions or degrees.

In the context of our discussion about transitions and ethics, it is clear that socioeconomic development and secularism in the West were organic developments. They occurred over time, were unplanned and within a context relevant to the West. Developing or traditional societies are at a distinct disadvantage in this regard, because we unlike the West that preceded us in this historical development are acutely aware of creating socioeconomic development and it’s attendant auxiliaries. This awareness has provoked forms of resistance and rejection amongst us that did not inhibit the West.

As societies have transitioned towards socioeconomic development, changes occurred in the serving values that predated the transition and in those serving values that were created by the process of transition. That is to say, old habits and traditions undergo change. A change in values precedes or is at least coterminous with socioeconomic changes.

One of the most influential and least acknowledged authors of the modern era was Dr. Bernard Mandeville. His “The Fable of the Bees: An Inquiry in to the Origin of Moral virtue” (originally published in1705) in his story, society, like a beehive, was divided in to two groups: The hardworking, righteous, noble, productive workers and idle, gluttonous, pompous slothful and deceitful nobility. One day the idle nobility decided to become truly noble by emulating the good workers and this caused the downfall of society. Mandeville was commenting on the profound social changes he observed in his day; social changes that encouraged traits that had been censured by the ethical philosophers of his day: selfishness, profiteering, ostentation and boasting. According to Mandeville, these private vices contribute to social equilibrium. He argues if everyone were to follow traditional maxims of frugality and asceticism, the whole of society would fall apart. Do you see the influence of this work in the work of Adam Smith or Hume, or in Bentham’s Utilitarianism? In “enlightened self interest”? Surely, who needs religion, the sinner or the saint? It is the ignorance of their virtue and their wickedness, that allows the role of equilibrium to be played; this “Invisible/hidden hand” that ensures no designers or planners, this “obliviousness” (Ghaflat), according to the much revered scholar Abu Hamid Al-Ghazli. Do not the transgressors and the sinners carry half the weight of public affairs by entering into a genuine but undeclared contract with the upright and the righteous members of society? In the same vein, would we deny, “In the enterprise of existence disbelief is inevitable”?

I would agree with you that in many ways, even fundamentally, the modern world is the ethical inverse of the old, traditional world. What were once “sins’ are today harnessed as fuel for the engines of “progress”. The secularization of ethics, the rationalization of happiness by utilitarianism, the centrality of humanity and the transposition of vices and virtues constitute the serving values that have preceded the birth of socioeconomic development. Certainly what has occurred has been a lowering and rearranging of the system of values. Yet this is not the entirety of the story.

As our precious and foul-mouthed friend, Drumz, has in my opinion, correctly suggested, “once the needs of the body are met, the hunger of the soul may be more apparent”. The God of those struggling for subsistence is the God of the oppressed, not that of the mystics. He is a God that vanquishes the oppressors, facilitates survival, pays off debts and grants wishes. Is this the conception of God that we should have? When primary needs are met, the opportunity of cultivating a deeper knowledge and contemplation of religion can be realized in hope that God the savior; the benefactor will shed those garbs to assume those of the beloved. Recall our discussion of the types of religiosity. As Muslims, we not revel in admiration of those while not our co-religionist, who nevertheless, animate the values and actions, we do not see Muslims in general animate or value?

Indeed what makes our course of action imperative is that we are no longer “oblivious” – we can no longer sin in our ignorance, for we are aware of our shame.

The ethics of poverty associated with the traditional order have been replaced by the ethics of prosperity. Flight from the world has been replaced by generating happiness in the world. Both the Sunni Al-Ghazalli and the Shi’a Feiz Kashani, after extensive inquiry concluded: “it should be generally admitted that poverty is better and safer than affluence because the poor have less of an interest in the worldly affairs and to that extent, they will be more inclined to prayer and pious reflection” (“The Book of Poverty and Religion” – “Ihya’ al-ulum al-Din” – Al-Ghazalli and “Mahaja al-Baiza” – Feiz Kashani). Security of the faithful in this scheme lies on the shores of poverty and a warning is sounded against seeking wealth:

“ In the sea there are treasures aplenty,

Stay on the shore if you seek safety,

Weakness brings security. This traditional view arises out of the highly visible social inequalities that are present in our societies even today. The affluents of that time, like the affluent in our traditional societies today, were more rebellious, indulgent and sinful. Sa’adi challenged Al-Ghazalli thus: The power of generosity, of worship, of unblemished property and clothes and of secure life and of an unburdened heart all belong tot he affluent. Leisure cannot be combined with poverty, nor security amidst destitute…many an innocent soul who has fallen victim to sin and corruption because of poverty, bidding farewell to good reputation forever”. Al-Ghazalli countered: …patient poor over the grateful rich…the rich will never attain the elation of the poor…and that even if they are equally parsimonious, the poor would be superior…” Which is morally superior, you decide. But if the world today is flawed, it would be difficult to argue that it is not patient and not poor, the failure is that it fails to be rich and to be grateful.

To summarize, we have identified two sets of ethics, the ethics of prosperity and a secular ethics, which confuses most; it is the ethics of science.

In fact objective secularism is in reality the scientification of society (elmania al-ijtima) and the rationalization of society (Aqlania). The values of objective secularism are the values of science. Science is truth seeking. Skepticism, criticism, tolerance, competition, ambition are the values of both science and socioeconomic development. Yet, this does not mean that science is the only actor on the stage, it does not mean that there are no other means of arriving at knowledge or the sole method for the discovery of the truth. While science makes no claim it is not “theory laden”, what else could be more impartial, objective, open to criticism than science?

Authoritarianism and despotism are also dependent on serving values, even as they pretend to be guiding values. A change in values must precede social transformation. If security was in poverty in an economic sense, does it not apply in a political sense? Is this not the essence of arrested development? Here as well some are confused, objective secularism is not an end, it is a means in the present stage of development. Democracy is the end in the present stage of development. Yet, can Democracy be an achievable goal with out objective secularism? While the fact that no such event has been witnessed yet, does not exclude it prom the realm of possibility, the probability is not encouraging. We are secure in our assertion that a change in serving values precedes social transformation.

Whereas in the traditional view, duties define one’s relationship with others and to God, in the modern or post traditional view, it is the demand for “rights” that tend to characterize such relations. Man was duty bound in the traditional scheme and is a rights-carrier in the modern. The rights-carrier is an altogether Different set of values than that of duty bound. Whereas the former envisions society as a market place where the aim is satisfying the members, the latter, envisions society as a temple whose purpose is to please the Creator. Indeed, the dichotomy may be represented as that between notions of Valayat (guardianship) and Vakalat (representation). Valayat becomes an even more problematic when the element of religion is infused in it.

For me, one of the most potent arguments against Valayat of a religious nature (and anything other Vakalat would by definition be Valayat) is that it assumes a God-like character; an abomination to all believers. That is to say fallible humans assuming God-like character in the making of mundane and management decisions; surely an abomination. Can fallible humans lead divine governments? Is this not an affront to all believers? Is this not tyranny and a subversion of guiding values?

We said earlier that objective secularism is the scientification and rationalization of society. Can politics evade this encounter? The answer is obviously no. Can religion evade a similar encounter? The short and immediate answer is that religion and science are different realms. While politics can only confine itself to the stage of the temporal, the stage of religion is the sacral.

Thus a secular (objective) democracy as a form of governance is not simply “secular” or a democracy characterized by elections. This must be a polity that is susceptible to criticism, checks and balances, where in everything and all public officials are subject to criticism, human appraisal or accountable.

Samina

A victim of an auto accident was rushed to the trauma center. The victim had a large family and they had all come to the hospital. After a couple of hours of waiting to hear the prognosis from the doctor, they were highly agitated. At the same time, the doctor came to talk to them. “How is he?” “Will he be OK?” they asked. The doctor looked worried and said: “It’s serious, he needs a brain transplant.” Everyone was silent, then a woman asked: “How much will it cost?”

The doctor replied that 4 brains were available for transplant. 3 were men’s and one was a woman’s. The brains of the men cost $1000 each, but the brain of the woman cost $200. The men in the room looked at each other and nodded knowingly. Then a woman asked why the difference in the prices of a man’s brain and a woman’s. The doctor replied that the woman’s brain was us

Ref ylh #: 89

[Yes what power... that when Jinnah ordered the Pakistan Army to intervene in Kashmir against the imminent Indian invasion, the British Chief of staff taking orders from Dehli, refused to obey.]

Sigh.... You forget the invasion of Kashmir by ``tribal irregulars`` from Peshawar, led by Pak Army officers who took ``leave of absence`` from the Army to lead them. You forget the fact that Kashmir had to first accede to India before India would send troops to Kashmir. All these facts are forgotten but only the fact that Gen. Gracy told Jinnah that he could not send British troops to fight British troops from the Indian side that is dredged up here.

Harimau,

More twisting of facts, more lies, more fallacies, you can`t stick to an argument can you. Try to read it in context. Whether or not tribals invaded is besides the point.

Let us even forget that Pakistan Army regulars could have liberated Kashmir given the precarious position that the Indian Army was at Srinagar Airport, but the fact is that Gen.Gracy the Commandar in Chief of Pakistan`s Army refused to obey the orders of the Governor General of the dominion. Was this the power that Jinnah was so hungry for?

So why the hell r u jumping arguments?

Re: Hobbyty to Urstruly

``...Your education in the sciences, your talent as an artist, your conscience, serves us admirably, as is reflected in the thoughtful and penetrating insights ...``

Urstruly, you have an admirer here! It is so good to see love blossoming on the Web -- ah! spring is in the air..

YLH:

Heeeeere from BBC:

A headscarf too far?

By Regional Analyst Pam O`Toole

The Turkish authorities have moved to close down one of the country`s main parliamentary parties, the pro-Islamic Virtue Party, saying its activities violate Turkey`s secular and democratic principles.

The party has been under threat of closure for some months, but the new move against it appears to have been triggered by a row over whether or not one of its new MPs should be allowed to wear an Islamic-style headscarf while taking the oath of office in parliament.

Her stand is being regarded as a political challenge to the secular principles upon which the Turkish Republic was founded.

The headscarf issue has become a symbol of the simmering confrontation between secularist and pro-Islamic forces in Turkey.

The army`s role

Secularism was one of the main pillars of the modern Turkish state set up by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in the 1920s.

Turkey`s powerful military, which regards itself as the guardian of Ataturk`s legacy, regards pro-Islamic parties like Virtue as one of the main threats facing the Turkish Republic. It was responsible for forcing Virtue`s predecessor, the Welfare Party, out of power in 1997.

Welfare was closed down early last year. Its leader, Necmettin Erbakan and several of its MPs were barred from public office for five years. Nevertheless, the majority of Welfare Party MPs managed to hold onto their seats by transferring to the new Virtue Party, which tried to present itself as a more moderate force than its predecessor.

Despite calls for its closure, Virtue managed to survive long enough to fight the general elections in April. It failed to repeat its 1995 election victory, winning only 15% of the vote.

However, when a Virtue Party MP, Merve Kavakci, tried to take her oath of office in a headscarf, it stirred up a major political controversy.

`Holy war`

Although the headscarf is widely worn in rural areas of Turkey, which is almost entirely Muslim, the secular elite regards it as a political symbol of Islamic fundamentalism and bans its use in universities and offices.

Deputies of the Democratic Left Party denounced Ms Kevakci`s actions

The MP`s refusal to compromise has rekindled allegations that Virtue is no less extreme a party than its predecessor.

The enraged Turkish establishment reacted by threatening to charge her with sedition. Their case has been bolstered by reports in Turkish newspapers, which maintain that in an address to a conference in the United States, Ms Kavakci had described her mission as a `holy war`.

Political ban

Ms Kavakci has pledged to make another attempt to take her oath of office next week, but the Turkish authorities are now moving not only to close down her party, but to remove all its MPs from parliament and ban them from politics for five years.

If the courts decide there`s a direct link between Virtue and the banned leaders of the former Welfare party, they will be able to establish that there`s been a clear violation of the law.

It is likely to be months before the courts come to any decision but if they issue a closure order, by-elections for the party`s 110 parliamentary seats would follow within three months.

The confrontation with Virtue has become a major issue in Turkish politics. With no sign of any compromise so far, the row is likely to continue and to complicate Prime Minister Ecevit`s efforts to set up a coalition government.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Harimau`s obsession with Moi,

Harimau, the uncle educated in Nehru`s time, has no argument. He is willing to take up any mahaz what so ever to spite me... as if ... anyway, currently, Harimau has succeeded in jumping another argument and is currently on Turkey Bashing now.

On `Jinnah of Pakistan` and `Grey Wolf`

I forgot to mention last time. Grey Wolf is not biography of my choice on Kemal Ataturk, though that was one of Jinnah`s favorite books. The best book I read on Kemal Ataturk is Andrew Mango`s `Ataturk` which 600 + pages of pure excitement and thrill. As for Wolpert, I thought you were trying to argue the opposite only a few posts ago.. ?

Call it Islam, Call it secularism, but this is what it is:

Minorities DO NOT cease to be citizens. Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opening speech to the constituent Assembley, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights as any other community. Pakistan SHALL pursue this policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the Non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. We do not prescribe any school boy tests for their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan `if there was war would you shoot a Hindu?`

(The founder of Pakistan, Quaid e Azam M. A Jinnah`s interview 25th October 1947: with Reuters` Duncan Hooper)