Posts
It has been known for a long time now that the Kurdish Question cannot be solved solely by words. Actually, old attitude of the state demonstrates that while saying “There are no Kurds”, Kurds were considered to be important at the same time. Moreover, this “There are no Kurds” rhetoric was not a way for not recognizing the existence of the Kurds, but rather a way to fight the Kurds. But, creating “fake realities” is one of the most commonly implemented tactics of the Republican regime. Because the Republican administration considered a “system in which differences could live together equally” as a threat, thus they saw the differences within the society of Turkey as “alien”, and treated them as if they were citizens of another country. Consequently, any step that aimed to give the rights of those different identities (groups) back to them, or bring social equality and improve freedoms, was seen as a “compromise”. It was as if there was a conflict going on between the state, which represented the Turkish identity, and other different identities and the real aim of the state was to win this conflict.
When we look at the issue from this perspective, we see that “There are no Kurds” rhetoric has tactical/strategic purpose. The advantage of beginning from the rearmost (such as “There are no Kurds”) would always be available in a possible negotiation process… In addition to this, when you manipulate the society in this direction, a psychological advantage comes along with it. This approach shows us that the attempt of a military coup—that is incorporated in the Ergenekon investigation—is not that “post modern”. Because the state in Turkey is very experienced in moving one part of the society in whichever direction it wants to… And the base for these (manipulated) movements – contrary to the practices in the West—is the fact that the society is left ignorant and is intentionally misinformed (about the realities on the ground).
The societies in which the level of ignorance is regulated, sometimes there are very convenient conditions for “solutions” to big problems, and the state does not miss that kind of opportunity. To give a simple example, the Capital Tax was implemented in the years of WWII (Turkish Capital Tax was aimed at the non-Muslim minorities of Turkey which impoverished them a lot), or if we go further in the past, the Assyrian and Armenian Deportation coincided with the WWI… These kinds of cyclical situations allow each country to get further away from the international laws, and break these laws. The ones who commit these crimes get away with what they do, and the actions of those times are buried in the history with the excuse of “some things have happened at that time, but there was a war”.
Thereby, regarding long–lasting problems that seem to be irresolvable, some big permanent steps are taken in favor of the state and consequently the Turkish identity… The ones who have the Turkish identity mostly don’t know of this special history and are not interested in it anyway. Most of them are happy with the ideological “information booklet” that the state provide them with, and continue their lives with the ignorance that is required by the citizenship. The small minority that objects to this is alienated/estranged and is forced to stay as if they are refugees, as a result of being blamed for a wide array of things that extends to being (called) a traitor.
But there is the exact apposite situation for the others (namely, non-Turks). For instance, the non-Muslims know this “state history” very well and are able to preserve their identity (conscience) partly by making this aforementioned history known. The same situation is applicable for the Kurds as well… So this bizarre situation comes to the forefront: “The more the Turks are inclined to forget, the more the Kurds are inclined to remember…”
On the other hand, the ones who are doing politics around/for the identities that are opposed by the state know that there is an untrustworthy/unreliable belligerent opponent/foe in front of them that looks for a cyclical situation (a moment that the opponent is weakest to attack). Because of this, they also try to maximize their bargaining power. To be on an unequal level against the state and to live in a republican regime that does not allow freedom of expression links the bargaining power usually to being an armed group. Shortly, emergence of the PKK as an armed group implies the pursuit of being equal (having equal power/authority) with the state. On the other hand, PKK’s existence is very functional, because even from the perspective of the Kurds that do not support its actions, PKK is an element of bargaining/negotiation against the state.
The ones who are talking about PKK’s disarmament are acting as if they are not aware of the history of the Republic of Turkey in the minds/memories of the Kurds. PKK could seriously lay down the arms, and they could genuinely want this, too… But it will not lay down arms as far as possible, because the Kurdish society does not trust the state. There is no guarantee that a more tyrannical regime will not be imposed upon the Kurds under the disguise of politicization of the PKK and there isn’t any state authority that can guarantee this. Because history has proven that these kinds of guarantees are (never) executed.
This year is a hundredth anniversary of the Adana Massacre in 1909… An event that some want to see forgotten, and others that want to remember it. The reason behind the conflict that emerged right after the declaration of the second constitutional period was the attraction of the wealth of the Armenians. The events started in small scale but grew into an armed “interference”/confrontation quickly which killed a few people from both sides. The Armenians were stronger/more resistant than they were expected to be and because they did not trust the authorities they did not want to give in their weapons. In this situation, Parliament made a decision of disarmament and the delegation that was sent to the region persuaded the Armenians as well. The Armenians gave in their weapons… in the following days 30 thousand people were massacred…
Nowadays, you could explain to the Kurds what a “right” decision it would be if the PKK laid down the arms. As a matter of fact that is how they think, too. They know that peace can only be achieved in an environment where there are no weapons. But they also know the history of this region and they don’t trust the state. That is issue…
So, you see why PKK should never give in the arms in their hands? Because it is our only guarantee!
