A policy of denial and assimilation conducted for 80 years resulted in a bloody conflict that has lasted for 25 years, as you already know. And it is clear by now that we will not emerge overnight from this bloody period in which over 40,000 people have lost their lives. It has become crystal clear in the past few weeks that neither Turkey’s armed forces and its supporters in the political arena, bureaucracy, judiciary and media, nor the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which claims it took up arms to defend Kurdish rights, and its supporters, are mentally prepared for this new process. That said, no option remains other than to courageously continue with the democratization process at full speed despite deep-seated opposition from the PKK, the now-defunct Democratic Society Party (DTP), the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK), the Republican People’s Party (CHP), the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), the high judiciary and segments of the media and bureaucracy.I’ll repeat; just as is the case with many of Turkey’s problems, there is no path to a solution to the Kurdish problem other than through further democratization. The road to ridding the PKK of its arms and eliminating that which is undemocratic also passes through further democratization. The removal of the threat of division and the provision of national unity and integrity likewise require further democratization, expanded freedoms and development of human rights standards -- there is no other way. It has finally been understood that a lasting peace cannot be achieved through the military’s weapons, through states of emergency or martial law. Those who see weapons, pressure and restricted rights as an alternative solution to democratization are only fooling themselves and wasting the time of the beautiful people of this country, one full of potential.
I recommend that those who oppose the initiative and democracy look back at history -- and to just look around. The slogan “Experience and perpetuate the 1,000-year-old brotherhood” which MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli deemed appropriate for rallies he organized is absolutely correct and good. But the question must be asked: Are the policies of the Ottoman and Seljuk periods that constitute an important segment of those 1,000 years the same as the policies of assimilation? It’s true that we’ve experienced a 1,000-year brotherhood living alongside different ethnic groups, including Kurds, through the Ottoman Empire’s pluralist, participatory and tolerant policies. But it’s also true that there were efforts during the Republican period toward denial, pressure and assimilation, isn’t it? And let’s also look around us. How is it that some countries manage to live together despite all differences and all manner of problems? Let’s take a look and see.
A few weeks ago, I once again traveled to India. This time, the trip was to Hyderabad, the capital of Andhra Pradesh. While there, we heard that the residents of Telangana, which is home to 30 million of the state’s 80 million people, wanted to separate from the state. A few days after we left India, Telangana, where Telugu is the dominant language spoken, on Dec. 9 became the country’s 28th state, officially separating from Andhra Pradesh. Did you hear any news of bloody clashes, rioting, explosions or chaos in relation to this? You did not, because no such conflict occurred.
What, you ask, is the secret to holding India together despite its population of 1.3 billion that comprises hundreds of ethnic groups, over 400 languages, hundreds of cultures and lifestyles and dozens of religious beliefs -- this despite the lack of access to electricity, water and access roads for 400 million people; despite hundreds of millions living beneath the poverty line; an annual population growth equivalent to Australia’s total population (25 million people); and an average age of 26? What is it that holds it all together despite an appearance that seems all too inviting for social explosions and discrimination? There’s no answer to this question other than democracy.
While we exhibit utter incompetence at figuring out how to survive with Kurds and Kurdish, India has managed to maintain peace and its democratic foundations with peoples speaking many different languages, including Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu, Awadhi, Bagri, Bhili, Bhojpuri, Bundeli, Chhattisgarhi, Garhwali, Gondi, Haryanvi, Ho, Kannauji, Khasi, Kodava, Kumaoni, Kurukh, Kutchi, Lahnda, Magahi, Malvi, Marwari, Mewari, Mewati, Mizo, Mundari, Nimadi, Rajbanshi, Sadri, Shekhawati, Seraiki, Sylheti, Tulu and Waddar.
Throughout the course of a breakfast we enjoyed at a locale on the Bosporus, Indian Foreign Minister Central Europe Division Joint Secretary T.P. Seetharam, who traveled to Turkey on Wednesday, and I found the opportunity to discuss at length bilateral relations as well as the different problems being faced in each of our countries. While I discussed the roadblocks facing Turkey in terms of solving its Kurdish problem, which when compared to the diversity in India seems absolutely simple, Seetharam suddenly took a bill out of his pocket and said as he showed it to me, “This is the solution.” He explained that on a section of the face of the 100 rupee bill, “100 rupees” was written in 17 of India’s official languages. He also explained that local administrators were able to perform all official transactions in local languages. While the linguae francae of India are English and Hindi, the secret of keeping the nation together was nothing other than democracy and democratic tolerance, Seetharam emphasized, not failing to add, “If it weren’t for democracy, India would fall in a day.”
Nobody has any doubts that Turkish is the lingua franca of Turkey. And there can be no doubt. So what’s this cowardliness, this fearfulness when it comes to Kurds and Kurdish? Those who benefit from the spreading of paranoia over division and ethnic conflict and oppose the democratic initiative have many lessons to learn both from the model experience of the Ottomans and the living example of the state of affairs in India, the world’s biggest democracy.
