The Treaty of Lausanne divided the Kurds between various states. The imperialists and the new Turkish government fixed the borders by means of haggling, violating the Kurdish nation’s right to self-determination and ignoring its aspirations and wishes.
In this way, the region of Kurdistan was divided between Iran, Iraq and Turkey.
At this juncture let us make another point: it is undoubtedly an injustice that Kurdistan’s right of self-determination was trampled upon and torn into pieces by the Treaty of Lausanne. And as Comrade Lenin said on another occasion, it is the task of communist parties to protest this injustice constantly and shame all the ruling classes on this subject. However, it would be foolish to include the rectification of such an injustice in the program, for there are many examples of historical injustices that have long since lost their topicality. As long as they are not a “historical injustice, one which still directly retards social development and the class struggle”[34] communist parties cannot adopt a position that would divert the attention of the working class from fundamental questions by ensuring their rectification. The historical injustice to which we have referred above has long ago lost its topicality: no longer having a character that “directly impedes social development and the class struggle.” For this reason, communists cannot be as foolish or lacking in discernment as to demand this rectification. The reason we make this point is the request of a colleague during the discussion of a draft program to put the unification of the Kurdistan region into the program. The communist movement in Turkey is only obliged to resolve in the best, most correct manner, the national question within the borders of Turkey. If the communist parties in Iraq and Iran find the best solution to the national question from the point of view of their own countries, then the historical injustice in question will no longer have any worth or significance. For us to include the unification of the whole of Kurdistan would be unsound for this reason: this is not something we shall determine. It is something the Kurdish nation will determine itself. We defend the Kurdish nation’s right of self-determination, that is, the right to establish its own separate state. Whether it will exercise the right or in what way we leave to the Kurdish nation itself. Since we shall subsequently return to this point, we shall move on.
The Kurdish movement continued within the borders of Turkey established by the Treaty of Lausanne. From time to time there were uprisings. The most significant of these were the 1925 Sheikh Said Rebellion, the 1928 Ararat Rebellion[35], the 1930 Zilan Rebellion[36] and the 1938 Dersim Rebellion. In addition to the “national” character of these movements they also had a feudal character. Feudal lords that had had self-rule until that time clashed with the central authorities when the government began to threaten that self-rule. This was the main factor impelling the feudal lords to rebel against the central government. The Kurdish bourgeoisie, wishing to dominate “its own” domestic market, united with the feudal lords desiring self-rule against the central authority in the hands of the Turkish ruling classes. As for the reason for the broad participation of the peasant masses in these movements, it was merciless national oppression. As Comrade Stalin pointed out on the policy of national oppression:
It diverts the attention of large strata from social questions, questions of the class struggle, to national questions, questions “common” to the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. And this creates a favorable soil for lying propaganda about “harmony of interests,” for glossing over the class interests of the proletariat and for the intellectual enslavement of the workers.[37]
All these reasons united the Kurdish feudal lords, young Kurdish bourgeoisie and intellectuals, and Kurdish peasants against the new State’s ruling Turkish bourgeoisie, landlords and ruling bureaucracy.
The Turkish bourgeoisie, the ruling classes of the new State, and the landlords attempted to spread and revive racism in every sphere. They rewrote history from the beginning, inventing a racist, nonsensical theory claiming that all nations came from the Turks. The source of all languages was also Turkish (!). The Sun Language Theory was manufactured in order to prove this. The Turks were the masters (in reality, the “masters” were the Turkish ruling classes). As for the minorities, they were compelled to obey them. It was forbidden to speak any language apart from Turkish. All the democratic rights of the minority nationalities were usurped. All manner of torture and insult towards them were permitted. Demeaning words were used for the Kurds. Efforts were made to create Turkish chauvinism among Turkish workers and peasants, which were broadly successful. Martial law, declared all over the country, was doubly severe in the East. The Kurdish region was declared to be a “military prohibited zone,” etc. It was inevitable that all this would strengthen oppressed nation nationalism as a reaction to dominant nation chauvinism. It was inevitable that Kurdish peasants would be pushed into the ranks of the bourgeoisie and feudal lords of their own nationality. The Kurdish people, a large majority of whom did not even speak Turkish, in particular the Kurdish peasantry, naturally reacted violently to the officials of the new administration, which oppressed and tormented them like a colonial governor. This just reaction of the peasants inevitably combined with the reaction of the feudal Kurdish landlords and the Kurdish bourgeoisie. The Kurdish rebellions emerged in this way. Communists support the progressive and democratic aspect of these rebellions against tyranny, the policy of oppression of nations, inequality and privilege, but oppose the wish of the feudal landlords for self-rule and the struggle of the bourgeoisie for its own superiority. They do not defend the privilege and superiority of the bourgeois and landlord class of any nation. In those periods the TKP[38] followed an erroneous policy; it unconditionally supported the Turkish ruling classes’ policy of national oppression. Instead of uniting the strong and just reaction felt by the Kurdish peasantry to the national oppression with proletarian leadership, it attached itself to the Turkish bourgeoisie and landlords, thereby inflicting great harm on the unity of the toiling people of both nationalities. This sowed the seeds of the lack of confidence towards the Turkish workers and peasants among Kurdish toilers.
Those who applaud the suppression of the Kurdish rebellions by the new Turkish State and the subsequent massacres as a “progressive,” “revolutionary” movement against feudalism are, pure and simple, incorrigible dominant nation nationalists. This sort of person ignores the fact that the new Turkish State did not only attack the feudal Kurdish chieftains but also the entire Kurdish people, women, children and men, massacring tens of thousands of villagers. They forget that the new Turkish State was friendly towards the feudal chieftains who did not oppose it, supporting and strengthening them. They ignore the significant difference between the factors that compelled the Kurdish peasantry to rise up and the reason that compelled the Kurdish feudal chieftains to rise up. Also, there are so-called “communists” who attempt to defend the policy of national oppression of the Turkish ruling classes based on the allegation that the British were behind the Sheikh Said rebellion. We shall not discuss here whether British imperialism was behind the Sheikh Said uprising. We shall discuss whether the policy of national oppression may be defended on the basis of such an allegation. Let us suppose that the hand of British imperialism was behind the Sheikh Said rebellion. In these circumstances, what should the attitude of a communist movement be? Firstly, to oppose absolutely the Turkish ruling classes’ policy of suppressing and crushing the Kurdish national movement, to actively struggle against this, and to demand that the Kurdish nation itself determine its destiny. That is, to demand that the Kurdish nation decide whether to establish a separate state. In practice, this means a referendum being held in the Kurdish region, without external intervention, with the Kurdish nation itself deciding, in this or in a similar way, whether or not to secede. A communist movement would firstly have struggled for the withdrawal of all military units sent to suppress the Kurdish movement; the absolute prevention of all manner of intervention; the Kurdish nation making its own decision about its future; and the exposure of the Turkish ruling classes’ policy of suppression, persecution and intervention – and would have actively fought against it. Secondly, it would have exposed British imperialism’s policy of pitting nationalities against each other and how this harms the unity of toilers from all nations, and actively fought the British imperialist policy of intervention in internal affairs. Thirdly, it would have evaluated the secession of the Kurdish nation “as a whole from the standpoint of the interests of the proletariat’s class struggle for social development and socialism” and reached a decision to support or not support secession. If it found not separating appropriate for the class interests of the proletariat, it would have propagandized for this among Kurdish workers and peasants in particular, Kurdish communists would have propagandized for unity among its own people and waged a struggle against those endeavoring to reconcile the struggle against national oppression with that of strengthening the position of landlords, mullahs, sheikhs, etc. In spite of this, if the Kurdish nation decided to secede, Turkish communists would have accepted it and definitely struggled against tendencies opposing the desire to secede. As for Kurdish communists, they would have continued to campaign for unification among Kurdish workers and toilers, struggled against imperialist intervention and struggled with the Kurdish feudal lords, sheikhs and mullahs and the nationalist aims of the bourgeoisie.
35
The 1928 Ararat Rebellion was a three year-long war in the extreme eastern part of Turkey, located around the Ararat Mount. Led by the Xoybûn Party, it established a provisional Kurdish Republic of Ararat. The rebellion was repressed by Turkey with the collaboration of the British Empire and France.
36
The 1930 Zilan Rebellion or Zilan Massacre was an offensive of the Turkish State that took place in the Zilan Valley during the Ararat Rebellion. The Turkish State’s bombardment killed an estimate of 5,000 to 15,000 people on July 12 and 13.
38