Tsherring,
I am a pan Islamist, i see the golden thread of Islam through the history of the Muslim nation. For you there is no such thing as a unified muslim nation, fair enough, but I do not share your world view. My opinion is my own as is yours. I recognise the importance of Ataturk and his accomplishments. But I see turkey as a template that the rest of the Muslim world should follow.... Strong Islamic democracy..... Pan islamism from that point is just a step away...
In terms of Bose.... Whilst I am supportive of this philosophy in one or two areas I think it is a stretch to equate Bose to Ataturk.
Personality cult is something we are more familiar with than you know ..... BAL is seeking to create one around Mujib in direct parallel to the Ataturk template.... In these cases I also say let these fathers of nations exist in idolised abstract as a sprit of the nation and not be fodder for politicians/military elites...
The secularization of Turkey was incremental and did not start with with Ataturk despite the misconceptions of some ignoramuses.
Many say it started with the Tanzimat reforms, others said it was even before that.
The late Ottoman state had a parliament with many Christian members and even a century or so before Ataturk the Ottoman had ceased being a theocratic state as per the exponents of traditional (note I say "traditional" and not true) Islamic law such as Hizbut_Tahrir and others would say.
There was opera in mid-19th century Istanbul, a parliament, a constitution. Ottoman Turkey was not like Saudi Arabia prior to Ataturk.
Ataturk did two things amongst others.
1. He introduced the post-Ottoman revolution to the masses and abolished the Ottoman oligarchy who did not care for ordinary Turks, as well as introducing greater industrialization. From a sociological viewpoint, Ataturk opened up Turkish society and abolished the Ottoman feudal structure.
2. He however went too far with his secularism (Inonu in some ways was worse) e.g. killing people for wearing the wrong type of hat, banning Kurdishness, killing clergymen, banning Hajj, forcing decadent western culture amongst the urban elite etc
This is the difference between him and the previous Ottoman reformers who though they made reforms did not do it in such a brutal, unnatural way thus traumatizing Turkish society for decades, they did it in a more gradual way respectful of traditional values. If Ataturk had heeded the ideas of Kazim Karabekir and others and been respectful of Islam (Ataturk didn't hate Islam itself but more "irtica" (backwardness) e.g. he was quite interested in the progressive and science-friendly ideas of Said Nursi) he would be to Turkey now what Washington is to the US, a truly universally respected hero.
The truth is contrary to what many Kemalists think, many Turks range from lukewarm respect coupled with disapproval of some of his acts to utter hatred.
Anyway he was a historical figure and should - as you right said - be seen in a historical light and not be utilized for advancing petty political agendas.
. That guy has even called tasawwuf is unnecessary.
