“Kurdishness ends where a Turkish bayonet appears” was a common phrase among the Turkish republic’s early nationalists about a century ago. It captured bluntly the only solution deemed fit for the Republic’s unavoidable Kurdish issue.

[Thread:]

Since then, whenever and wherever “Kurdishness” emerged so did the Turkish bayonet. The founders theorised that there could be no other way to deal with the problem. And any other way would endanger the integrity of the Republic.

Hell-bent opposition to “Kurdishness” became a core tenet of Turkish nationalism. And so fighting against anti-Kurdish nationalism became an intrinsic part of life for those wanting to remain Kurdish.

And a cycle of violence and destruction was created. And throughout the last century, each time a revolt for “Kurdishness” emerged, so did the Turkish bayonet, and the wounds deepened.

The only possible way to be an equal citizen was to stop being what you were and give up what made you. To be yourself, in the plainest sense, was a political act, even if you didn’t want it to be. Such acts were a threat to the Republic.

By being yourself, you violated the contract you never signed.

To be anything but Turkish in the Turkish Republic meant that you were unhappy. When the founders declared “How happy is the one who says I am a Turk”, note that the phrase is not who “is” but who “says” a Turk.

You’ve been given the choice. By not taking it, you refused a privilege that was not offered to many less fortunate, and you would be promptly reminded of them and what happened to them. You were deemed moldable and now you were refusing to be molded.

You either had to be “happy” denying who you were, or face the bayonet. Some took it. They gave up on their “Kurdishness” and adopted ‘the superior and the modern’ identity imposed on them.

But some didn’t or couldn’t. For those who refused to change their nature, each moment of subordination, humiliation and misery injected another dose of resentment that accumulated into anger, rage and violence.

Since the founding of the Republic, every few decades, another revolt erupted while the conditions that instigated it persisted on and on and sometimes even worsened as a punitive response.

Kurdish-majority regions were subjected to indefinite periods of martial law. Special courts were erected to efficiently execute those who participated or supported the uprising. Tens of thousands were killed, and hundreds of thousands were forced out of their homes into exile.

Kurdish names were a reminder of “Kurdishness” so the names of people, villages, towns, provinces and mountains, rivers and valleys were changed. Even the word “Kurd” was banned for a period. Anything that would give a sense of history, memory and identity had to go.

Kurdish subjects of the Republic were banned from speaking the only language they knew. The cruel absurdity of it led to situations that even puzzled those who enforced the ban:

How to question someone you need to question but only speaks the banned language? Exceptions were granted when the expected answers deemed useful.

At some point, those who insisted on being Kurdish were put into a junta-run prison.

The precise function of the prison was to break those, often physically, who stubbornly insisted on “Kurdishness”.

Unable to speak Turkish, parents who visited their imprisoned daughters and sons would go to the prison only to look at them without speaking.

When they reflexively uttered a word in the only language they spoke, the guards yelled: “It’s banned to speak the banned language!” and pointed to the wall where it said in black bold capital letters in Turkish: ‘SPEAK TURKISH SPEAK PLENTY’.

That prison designed to break those who insisted on being Kurdish, also held those who were not Kurdish but stood for them. The prison became a living hell for its inmates. They were to be examples for others who still demanded "Kurdishness"

Some prisoners killed themselves in the most harrowing ways, raging against the depths of dehumanisation they were subjected to. And they did become examples but not in the way their torturers intended. Some survived that prison only to wind up imprisoned again decades later.

The Republic’s century-long history, its policies, its legacy and memory, coupled by the stories coming from places like the military prisons and martial courts, contributed to inciting another insurgency.

The one that is going on today & has been going on for 4 decades now.

What happened a few days ago has happened every few years since this conflict began in various ways, and each time, the megaphones are reserved for those who vow a bigger and harsher war, paradoxically further fomenting the conditions for it.

Meanwhile, recognising that the problem stems from a civil rights issue that can only be settled by eliminating the civil conditions that push people into radical means are deemed to be treacherous or apologist viewpoints.

You have to repeat the regime’s narrative word by word or you are with the enemy. It's sheer terror and nothing more.

But reducing this conflict to a matter of “war on terror” equals throwing timber into its fire. It trivialises the realities that feed it.

It helps the ruling regime further concentrate its cruel grip on power by both inflaming the conflict and aggravating the conditions that fuel it. It enables them to further suffocate and repress their opponents with greater impunity – a process already underway.

Many victories have been claimed over the PKK. Each ruling party and junta declared they will be the one to eliminate them for once and all. And yet, here we are: nearly 40 years of conflict, over 40 thousand deaths, untold suffering, immense destruction and grief is all there is

Anyone who has engaged with the subject carefully enough can see that the violence is a symptom not a cause. The senseless, uptight and ruthless denial of Kurds as a distinct community able to coexist within the Republic is what created the PKK and all those who came before them.

It is that denial that keeps them active, drives them, it’s why so many still join them and why their war survived this long.

If a century is not enough to see that the bayonet doesn’t work and only exacerbates the problem, then what will?