Ennobling Kurdish Patriotism
07 April 2004
KurdishMedia.com - By Tara Welat
There are competing claims concerning the will of oppressed nations to survive. One view holds that by reason of their oppression, peoples who are under constant pressure to assimilate eventually lose their will to survive as a distinct people. They may live on a physical existence, but eventually, they can no longer defend what makes them unique. For evidence, contenders of such a view cite the fact that in the last century 2,000 distinct ethnic groups have disappeared. The other view maintains that people not only seek progeny but progeny who remember them and to this end, humans will fight to the bitter end to defend their way of life and to resist assimilation.
Where do the Kurds fit into this picture? Surely, the fact that we have resisted assimilation thus far and have given countless martyrs for our cause would conclusively affirm that the Kurds possess the will to survive oppression. But even a cursory look at Kurdish history and current politics suggest that this is not a complete picture. While as a whole, the Kurdish people have survived, for some Kurds, the temptation of assimilation has been all too powerful. We find many educated ethnic Kurds in Ankara, Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran as the faithful servants of the ruling regimes. There are also other ideologies -- aside from the nationalist ideologies imposed on the Kurds by their colonizers -- namely Islam and Socialism, which the Kurds have been willing to accept, mostly at the expense of their Kurdish identity.
I do not intend to make an argument that either Islam or Socialism necessitates a rejection or a lessening of the importance of an ethnic identity, much less the Kurdish identity. In the case of religion, the Turks, the Arabs and the Farsis have employed Islam in order to promote and propagate their own nationalisms. In the case of Socialism, many young communists in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran who clamoured loudly for the ‘workers of the world to unite’ and for the ‘disintegration of borders’ remained silent if the issue came to dissolving the borders of their own country. It was only the Kurds who were convinced that they should not ask for an independent Kurdistan that would add artificial borders to a world in need of disposing of them, while at the same time never seriously challenging the artificial borders of their oppressive regimes. A Kurdish political party in Iran continues not to recognize the Kurdish national anthem ‘Ey Reqib’ and instead upholds the Socialist International anthem.
Kurds were particularly victims of universalist ideologies which generally had the effect of weakening their Kurdishness. Our political parties have for too long served this or that ideology rather than the Kurds. Socialism and Islam continue to take their toll on ‘Kurdayeti’; in matters of utmost importance, for many Kurds it is socialist principles or Islamic principles which trump Kurdish interests. The American led war to rid Iraq of one of the world’s most brutal tyrants created unrest within the Kurdish population, especially in Turkey, and tested their fidelity to the cause of Kurdish freedom. Aside from those who unhesitatingly supported the war and those whose support was tempered by considerations of real politik, many Kurds denounced the war (and Kurdish participation) out of an ingrained anti-Americanism, which is increasingly the common cornerstone of pro-Islamic and Socialist circles. For the latter, no amount of positive developments could justify the ‘imperialist’ war on Iraq. Even more disconcerting was the lack of a united Kurdish voice for the future of Iraq and Kurdistan. No political party thought it “realistic” to ask for an independent Kurdistan, the PUK leader Talabani signed an agreement for provincial governates, the PCDK (sister party to the PKK) at one time also asked for provincial governates, both the PUK and KDP accepted an interim constitution that left the status of Kerkuk ambiguous (this, despite the fact, that our slogan has been “Kerkuk is the heart of Kurdistan”). The upshot? At a time when it mattered a great deal, the Kurds were not a nation united. And it is important to realize that this is because at such critical times, it is not a common language or culture that binds one Kurd to another but a common patriotism, and I daresay, a common nationalism that gives one vision for all Kurds -- independent of their citizenship, dialect, party, or creed.
Mentioning the word nationalism, however, is like a taboo. Writing about it is untimely, to say the least. Say the words “ethnic nationalism” and you hardly get a sympathetic ear. But wherever you look around, nation-states do not appear to be disappearing. And the soft nationalism that holds them together appears to be prevailing. Nationalism, a love of one’s own, is indeed natural and even beneficial. Nationalism need not be blinding or xenophobic and can serve the citizenry (rather than vice-versa).
What is truly needed then, is not the strengthening of Kurdish nationalism – we are far more urgently in need of a defence of Kurdish nationalism, or in politically correct terms, patriotism. Until today, we have relied solely upon our recalcitrant, freedom loving will to survive as a nation. We have fought off invaders and retreated to the mountains in order to preserve our self-rule. But we must question ourselves and ask how long this will continue if not only our leading politicians, but even our youth think the dream of independent Kurdistan is “nice but unrealistic”. Doesn’t this mean that at some level Kurdish nationalism is unrealistic? We are content with whatever step is taken forward, but as a nation we no longer envision the leaps which can make statehood a reality. International politics is not a realm of fixed and unchanging variables. Why do we treat it like one? At a time when such promise holds for Iraqi (Southern) Kurdistan, each of us must hold in our mind’s eye the spectacle of Kurdish freedom and independence.
I dwell upon the concept of freedom as intricately tied to any conception of Kurdish patriotism because I believe that it is the Kurdish love of freedom which has allowed us to preserve our identity after thousands of years of oppression and countless conquests by invaders and occupiers. But our commitment to freedom is being tested today more than at any time in our history. Our circumstances are changing. Our enemies are no longer threatening us with overt military measures which naturally awaken our instinct for resistance and our repulsion to subjection; instead we see them pursue a policy not of annihilation but assimilation.
As more and more countries become “melting pots”, where cultures and identities are merged into a “mosaic”, attempts to assimilate the Kurds will increasingly come under the guise of democracy. Just as Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1835 upon his visit to America, we can confidently claim that “a great democratic revolution is taking place among us.” . This revolution has swept through America and the West and it is now bursting through the gates of the Middle East.
Democracy brings with it the power of equality. An embrace of democracy effectively crushes racist regimes built upon the superiority of one race and one faith over another and upholds the “equality of conditions” for all. The Kurds, who have been subjected to the racist and despotic policies of their neighbours, are determined to ride the tide of democracy. And, it can very well bring them to the shores of Kurdish freedom – if they are able to navigate through the troubling waters. We must be well versed in what democracy demands of us in order to ensure that democracy does not end up becoming an ideology that weakens Kurdishness rather than empowering it.
The argument of democracy tailored by the ruling regimes to address the Kurds (this applies especially to the current debates taking place in Turkey and Iraq) goes something like this: Why do you ask for special rights or autonomy (or heaven forbid, independence) when we can live as equals and brothers, with full freedoms, under one (centralized) democratic state?
Indeed, for a minute, it seems harsh to insist upon Kurdish self- rule. We have lived with the Turks, Arabs, and the Farsis for centuries, why must we insist upon separating ourselves? (Of course, we will have to momentarily suspend our disbelief and imagine our coexistence had been a happy one.) If we weigh our options carefully, we will realize that the adoption of democracy will mean the end of oppression, but will it bring the Kurds freedom?
Is it enough that the Kurds become equals with the Turks, the Arabs, and the Farsis and enjoy the same privileges, individual rights and freedoms that they do under the umbrella of a democratic state? Has the basis of our struggle for all these centuries been to free ourselves from oppression and enjoy our individual freedoms and the prosperity that will accompany them?
The question we must immediately ask ourselves is whether a centralized, unitarian state that is democratic (insofar as it guarantees its citizens individual rights and freedoms) can effectively protect and preserve Kurdish cultural and political rights. As it is quite certain that the Kurds of Iraq will enjoy atleast a federal structure, this question is more pertinent for the Kurds of Turkey. Will the freedom to learn the Kurdish language ensure that the Kurds continue to speak it? If this was the case, why have not the Kurds of Turkey in the diaspora made a concerted effort to speak and learn their native tongue? If Kurdish language courses are treated as electives in high school and university, how many Kurds will choose Kurdish when they can choose English?
Secondly, we must question a conception of democracy that is limited to creating a centralized state and which will ultimately push for the homogeneity of its citizens. The Kurds of Turkey are currently under great pressure to accept a unitarian Turkish state which gives limited cultural and political rights to the Kurds. The imprisoned leader of the PKK (currently Kongra Gel) Abdullah Ocalan dangerously views autonomy, federalism and the rich array of other options that democracy offers as being “anti-democratic” and as serving “primitive nationalism”. In Mr. Ocalan’s last interview with his lawyers on March 17, 2004, he refers to Tocqueville’s thoughts about American democracy. Yet, readers of Tocqueville will know that he viewed the centralization of government as one of the greatest dangers that is inherent in a democracy (one which could even lead to despotism and the servitude of all). One must also not forget that, according to Tocqueville, the strength of American democracy lay in the power of its local governments and in its federal structure of government.
Lastly, we must examine deep within ourselves and see whether it is a freedom from oppression (which is tied to a love of equality) which animates our soul or whether we love freedom as a good in itself. The freedom to govern oneself is one of mankind’s noblest passions and Tocqueville testifies that “the source of this passion for political freedom has made men do the greatest things that humanity has accomplished” . Only the Kurds can decide whether our love of independence has been to rid ourselves of oppression or whether it has been to rule ourselves in a way we deem worthy. Do we prize self-rule as an end in itself?
I believe that there is among the Kurds, enough people who love freedom for itself and who will struggle for it obstinately until the Kurds enjoy self-rule. It is up to such people, whose hearts are filled with this noble desire, to strengthen the pure love of freedom which dwells within the bosom of their fellow Kurds. Let us not forget the deep roots of the love of freedom that we possess: writers today are no less impressed than Xenophon was who, writing more than 2000 years ago, recounted the fierce resistance the ancient Kardukhoi, the ancestors of the Kurds, gave near the mountains of Kurdistan. Today, Kurdistan is still home to a people who never accepted forced assimilation and who chose the loss of their prosperity in freedom rather than maintain it in servitude. These people are the two million Kurds who signed the petition to have a referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan, they are the brave martyrs of Kurdistan of Turkey who died while shouting “Biji Kurd u Kurdistan” (“Long live Kurds and Kurdistan”), they are the Kurds of Iran who established the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad, they are the Kurds of Syria who joined their brothers in the cause of an independent Kurdistan and they are the Kurds of the former Soviet republics who have preserved our culture and heritage even in the diaspora.
There is no question that a people once free politically can serve the cause of humanity all the more profoundly. Only when the Kurds are truly free will they become the real friends of democracy for they will have joined the love of liberty with the love of equality. Indeed, the Kurdish people are one of the most suitable people in the Middle East to carry the torch of democracy. They have mild manners, they prize liberty, and they have natural tolerance of differences – they speak Kurmanji, Sorani, and Zazaki, they are Sunnis, Alevis, Yezidis, Christians and Jews, and they have shown a respect for the minorities that have lived among them. By ennobling Kurdish patriotism, which involves strengthening our love of freedom, the Kurds will become the greatest defenders of democracy in the Middle East.
kurdmedia.com |
