An Open Letter to My Esteemed Professor İsmail Beşikçi

MY ESTEEMED PROFESSOR,

The first volume of my book, KÜRTLER VE GÜLLER (Kurds and Roses), met its readers in January 2022. Regarding my book, you published an evaluative article titled “KÜRT AYDINLARI” (Kurdish Intellectuals) on February 28, 2022. It was an honor for me to see and evaluate myself through the pen of a personality I hold in such high regard. I wish to express my gratitude and respect to you, with all my sincerity, in the presence of my readers, for giving me this opportunity.

Esteemed Professor,

In your article, you drew our readers' attention to two important points:

The first point is that I should question whether my use of the word “Kürt” in the book is correct, and whether the word should be written as “KürT” or “KürD.” You suggest that it would be beneficial for me to read the article titled “Kürdce, KürD Hareketi ve KürT Aydınları” (Kurdish Language, Kurdish Movement, and Kurdish Intellectuals) by Prof. Dr. Aziz Yağan.

I find it useful to quote the second point verbatim: “Researcher and author Mücahit Özden Hun should write an article, to be placed at the beginning of the second volume of his book, concerning the function of intellectuals in a society like Kurdistan, which is divided, fragmented, shared, and whose language, culture, and democratic rights have been usurped.”

PART ONE

Esteemed Professor,

If you permit, I would like to prioritize examining the topic of “The Definition of a Kurdish Intellectual” and share my thoughts on this matter with you:

THE DEFINITION OF A KURDISH INTELLECTUAL 

Esteemed Professor,

Before delving into the phrase “Kurdish Intellectual,” I would like to briefly discuss when the word INTELLECTUAL was first used and its various definitions:

Considering the available information, the honor of first using the word “Intellectual” is attributed to the famous English poet Lord Byron. In an essay he wrote in 1813, he used the word “Intellectual” not as an adjective but as a noun, making a note: “I wish I were good enough to listen to these INTELLECTUALS.”

Before this date, the expression “Belletrist” had entered French, and since this expression was used to mean “Writer,” I believe it is a correct approach to start our discussion of the term “Intellectual” with Lord Byron, setting aside that earlier definition.

I would like to state first and foremost that the expression and definition of “INTELLECTUAL” have changed over time and have also acquired different meanings depending on the culture in which they are found. Therefore, it is difficult to provide a definition of “INTELLECTUAL” that is universally agreed upon today. Indeed, knowing this, you suggested that it would be appropriate for me to write an article on “THE DEFINITION OF A KURDISH INTELLECTUAL.”

You were right! Such a definition would be appropriate at the beginning of a book whose content includes brief biographies of “Kurdish Intellectuals.” However, I had deemed it appropriate to leave this judgment and inference to my readers. Because from my extensive readings, I understood the following:

Every political group, every individual, and even official ideology had its own definition of an INTELLECTUAL. I did not want to interfere with these perspectives, because my book undertook the task of objectively conveying subjective experiences to the reader; in such a situation, including my personal opinions and evaluations in the book would have created a contradiction with its content.

I would like to list some noteworthy definitions of INTELLECTUAL made so far:

According to French philosopher and writer Jean-Paul Sartre, “Intellectuals” are the conscience of their times. Their moral and ethical responsibility is to monitor socio-political events and, by involving their conscience, freely convey what they deem appropriate to society. In short, an “Intellectual” is someone who takes up a matter that does not concern them and brings it to the agenda.

Americans have a different definition of “Intellectual”: Academics and intellectuals are combined in the same definition. Another task of intellectuals is to put forward pseudo-scientific arguments to justify the crimes committed by the state. This is because those who achieve outstanding success in school can become devalued in a capitalist economy. Even if they have better living conditions than the average citizen, successful students who do not find the reward for their academic success in the market become opponents of the system; this gives rise to the American definition of “Intellectual.”

Economist Thomas Sowell proposes another definition. According to him, an “Intellectual” is someone who produces knowledge rather than goods, and who also wants to speak on subjects outside their areas of interest (professional). As an example of an “Intellectual,” he gives the English philosopher Bertrand Russell, because Russell, although it was not his subject, warned the government about rational armament before the First World War.

Another definition of an “Intellectual” is as follows: Someone who thinks critically, researches and reflects on social realities, and also produces solutions for the system of social values. An “Intellectual” is interested in politics, takes a certain position, avoids committing to a specific ideology, and fights against injustice.

Sometimes the definition of an “Intellectual” is considered equivalent to adopting an anti-university stance, and is treated independently of academic career.

Sometimes the definition of an “Intellectual” is equated with “courage.” Emile Zola is given as an example of this. Emile Zola and Anatole France together bravely stood up against injustice in the anti-Semitic Dreyfus affair. Zola wrote an article titled “J’accuse!” which was published on the front page of the newspaper. He opposed the French government. He demanded that the President resolve the issue.

Sociologist Frank Furedi proposes another definition: “Intellectuals cannot be defined by what they do. They reveal themselves by how they see themselves, what stance they take in the face of an event, and what system of values they adhere to.”

Edward Saïd offers another definition: “A true ‘Intellectual’ is someone who voluntarily distances themselves from society, can look at events from the outside, and therefore stands on the periphery of society.”

Ralf Dahrendorf brings another definition of an “Intellectual” to our attention: “Intellectuals are those who doubt everything that is obvious and ask questions that no one dares to ask.”

Esteemed Professor,

As you can see, the definition of “Intellectual” varies according to different cultural values, schools of thought, sociologists, and philosophers. I understand that the real question we need to ask is: What should be the fundamental characteristics of a “Kurdish Intellectual”? To be honest, I have not yet come across a definition of a KURDISH INTELLECTUAL that takes into account the social and historical realities of the Kurds. Most of what has been written has been a transfer of “Intellectual” definitions from Europe and the world.

THE MATHEMATICAL DEFINITION OF A KURDISH INTELLECTUAL

Esteemed Professor,

I don't know how familiar you are with the science of mathematics. I want to give an explanation that won't tire you. You must have heard that all bodies have a center of gravity. For example, the center of gravity of a circular piece of iron/stone of the same thickness is exactly in the middle. That is, if we tie a rope to the center and lift it, this object will remain parallel to the ground.

Let's delve a little deeper into the subject. Let's consider these shapes: cube, cylinder, cone, pyramid with a triangular base, pyramid with a rectangular base, pyramid with a square base, pyramids with hexagonal/octagonal bases, etc. Let's assume we are building colossal structures similar to these three-dimensional shapes. Which one, despite thousands of years, will manage to remain standing and why?

Once upon a time, humanity aimed to build the highest building to reach God. The Tower of Babel had a roughly cylindrical structure. It could not withstand earthquakes and erosion, and it collapsed; the Colossus of Rhodes stood on two feet, it collapsed in an earthquake; the first section of the Lighthouse of Alexandria was a rectangular prism, and a cylindrical second section was added on top of it. The Lighthouse of Alexandria also could not withstand earthquakes and collapsed. The only structures that did not collapse were the pyramids. What was the reason for this?

The answer to this question is related to the center of gravity. The center of gravity of a cube is exactly in the middle; the center of gravity of a cylinder is in the middle. It has also been observed that among all structures with triangular, rectangular, square, pentagonal, hexagonal, etc., and finally circular (cone) bases, only pyramids with square bases have been able to withstand earthquakes and erosion for thousands of years. There is only one reason for this: In a pyramid with a square base, the center of gravity is closest to the ground. In this situation, it is difficult for the pyramid to collapse. The closer the center of gravity of a three-dimensional object is to the ground, the more durable it is.

Esteemed Professor,

History has proven to us that a pyramid with a square base is the most durable structure.

Concurrently, I would also like to address Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

As children of a people whose country is divided into four parts, scattered across Khorasan, Kazakhstan, and other regions of the world, when defining an “Intellectual,” we must approach it by likening it to the most robust structure, the pyramid. A “Kurdish Intellectual” must resemble a pyramid so that they can withstand earthquakes, erosion, wars, assimilation, and massacres.

The question is: If we consider it by comparing it with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, what layers should the “Kurdish Intellectual Pyramid” contain from bottom to top?

MASLOW'S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS

My average reader may not have heard of this concept. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs suggests that for human beings struggling for survival, the most important are physiological needs (eating, drinking, shelter). After securing these, humanity moves to the second layer, the need for security. Once food and security needs are secured, the need for belonging or love emerges. Only after these three layers are met can other needs and ultimately self-actualization become possible.

The definition of the Kurdish Intellectual Pyramid is similar to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

FIRST LAYER (Bottom layer): The bottom layer of a “Kurdish Intellectual” is their love for their land and their commitment to their spiritual values. The important question here is: What are “Spiritual Values” for a “Kurdish intellectual”?

a. Understanding and respecting the past and values of their tribe or extended family network; protecting their tribe or extended family network; viewing the social reality of “tribe” not as a “shame” but as one of the stages or forms of existence of Kurdish society; not dismissing “tribal identity” by equating it with backwardness and primitivism. The duty of a Kurdish Intellectual, if any, is to transform the tribe or extended family they belong to into a Civil Society force appropriate for the requirements of the age. Today's internet journalism has the power to create a meaningful and highly solidarity-driven spiritual value among tribal members. It is gratifying to see that some tribes have achieved this.

b. Understanding and internalizing the drama, pain, rebellion, and tragedies experienced by the tribe or extended family network; being curious about tribal or family history and being aware of what has happened;

c. Showing respect to elders and seniors, honoring them; (it saddens me to see this respect disappearing. The unwritten constitution of Kurdish society lies in respect for elders and adherence to social values.)

d. Loving the soil, stones, mountains, animals, water, and nature of their birthplace and being bound to them with a sense of responsibility;

(NOTE: Since the same language is not spoken throughout Kurdistan, and there is no adherence to the same religion and sect, we cannot consider either religion or language as a common denominator in this layer.)

SECOND LAYER: This layer means carrying a deep, sincere, and unconditional commitment and responsibility to the values listed above. It means embracing the first layer by prioritizing feelings of love and ownership, and experiencing the excitement of it. If we devalue the social reality in which we grew up with “ideological nonsense,” we will actually be denying ourselves.

For a Kurdish Intellectual in the first or second layer, whether they speak Kurdish perfectly or not is of no value. They can perfectly well grow up speaking any language (Turkish, Persian, Arabic, Russian, etc.) and carry a consciousness of being Kurdish in their heart and mind, provided they remain committed to the first two layers.

I would like to give an example: Mümtaz Kotan, the Kotan brothers Orhan, and Ümit Fırat cannot speak Kurdish, but because all three have perfectly fulfilled their responsibilities in the first and second layers, they have earned respect as Kurdish Intellectuals who do not know Kurdish.

THIRD LAYER: A Kurdish Intellectual must be brave, fearless, respectful, and loyal. It is not possible to define someone who speaks Kurdish perfectly but is cowardly, skilled at betraying friends, and kneaded with the dough of jealousy as a “Kurdish Intellectual.” The geography of Kurdistan cannot tolerate “cowardice and betrayal.” It is quickly affected by this approach and withdraws into itself. Furthermore, a Kurdish Intellectual is tasked with protecting the society they live in from dangers and not putting it at risk, unlike their European and American counterparts who act for individual gain. They must be far from adventure, and not manipulate society for their own political “careerist” ambitions. They must prioritize common sense over emotionality. Emotionality is the blinding of the heart and mind, that is, slavery. Common sense is developing one's own worldview and having self-confidence.

FOURTH LAYER: This is the desire to access knowledge, to strive for it, and to use this knowledge for the benefit of the tribe or extended family network to which one is wholeheartedly committed in the first layer. It is contrary to the reality of existence for a Kurdish Intellectual to lead an individual life, distant from their own society, like European intellectuals.

Imagine a young Kurd: Kurdish is not spoken in the family they were born into, but they know they are Kurdish. They adhere to the values of the first and second layers. After a good education, they return to their people and serve wholeheartedly as a businessman, doctor, or lawyer. If you ask whether this young Kurd or a Kurd who does not care about the first and second layers but speaks and writes Kurdish perfectly will benefit Kurdish society more, I will undoubtedly argue that the former is more important.

FIFTH LAYER: This is being aware of and respecting the linguistic, sectarian, religious, and other cultural differences that have existed within the Kurdish nation for centuries. Many Kurds, for example, view languages like Kurmanji, Zazaki, Sorani, Lurish, etc., as dialects. When we ask, "Dialects of what, or which language?" we receive no answer. Each of the languages mentioned above is an INDEPENDENT LANGUAGE. There are significant morphological, grammatical, and lexical differences between them. I would like to compare just two languages I've randomly chosen:

Kurmanji                                            Sorani

Has ergative structure                                No ergative structure

Has two personal pronouns                                Has one personal pronoun

Gender distinction in nouns                  No such distinction (Neutral)

Without going into too much detail, it is a fact that even if these two languages once came from the same root (Avesta), they have now irreversibly diverged. We cannot arbitrarily remove the ergative structure. We cannot arbitrarily reduce two personal pronouns to one or disregard gender distinctions. These efforts are a betrayal of the Independent Kurdish Languages. Many Kurds who define themselves as “Intellectuals” exhibit a meaningless reflex, saying, “The imperialists have already fragmented us; let's not fragment ourselves further.” Someone who believes their own language is merely a “dialect” rather than an Independent Language cannot truly learn that language.

If a Kurdish intellectual views these languages as “dialects,” they cannot develop themselves, or in my estimation, they are not an “Intellectual.” Let's not forget, a state cannot be built with a dialect. Today, Sorani and Kurmanji coexist in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. If they were dialects, then there should have been a superior language called “Kurdish,” which we know does not exist.

In short, a Kurdish Intellectual must see Kurmanji, Sorani, and Zazaki not as “dialects” but as “Independent Kurdish Languages.” Let's imagine two individuals, one speaking Kurmanji perfectly and the other speaking Zazaki perfectly. Each believes their own language is the “real Kurdish” and they clash with each other. The Independent Kurdish Languages could not develop and make progress due to these conflicts. Unfortunately, we cannot classify the educated individuals (!) who cause these conflicts as “Kurdish Intellectuals.”

Kurmanji, Zazaki, and other Kurdish languages were not created by imperialists. They developed over thousands of years to reach their present state. Even the 16th-century poet Ahmed Khani uses the word “Kurmanc” in his poems.

Kurmanc ne pir di bê kemal in

Emma di yetîm û bê mecal in

(….)

Ne ji bo sahîb rewacan
Belki ji bo biçûkê kurmancan.

This also applies to sects and religions. A Kurdish intellectual must adopt respect for all ethnic and religious structures in the geography of Kurdistan as a way of life. Êzîdî Kurds, Jewish Kurds, Muslim Kurds (Sunni/Alevi/Shia)…

SIXTH LAYER: A Kurd who successively fulfills the conditions in the layers listed above must bear the responsibility of learning their Independent Language, writing and speaking in this language, working for this cause even if alone, and protecting historical documents to the best of their ability. If this is done, the person will have achieved self-actualization. This is the true KURDISH INTELLECTUAL, someone who continues through these six layers sequentially, without skipping any, to the very end. While continuing all these processes, they must be “pragmatic,” that is, focused on achieving results. They must stay away from meaningless “ideological” definitions and live their own reality naturally.

We know that Kurdish parties governed municipalities for many years. Not a single municipality opened language courses or printed and distributed books in a language appropriate to the characteristics of its region (Kurmanji / Zazaki). The definition of a “Kurdish Intellectual” must be made by taking all these realities into account.

WHAT IS THE CURRENT SITUATION?

Today, this pyramid has been turned upside down. Among so-called Kurdish intellectuals, there is a competition to speak or write Kurdish (Kurmanji, Zazaki, Sorani, etc.) best. The linguistic richness achieved in this way, by ignoring other layers, has no value. It is artificial. It is not natural. They are ready to be overturned at any moment, to clash with each other, and even to disappear.

A similar understanding prevails for the definition of a “Kurdish Intellectual”: “If you cannot speak Kurdish, if you cannot read Kurdish books, if you cannot write Kurdish, then, unfortunately, we do not consider you a ‘Kurdish Intellectual.’” However, for Kurds without POLITICAL STATUS, the First and Second Layers imply the discipline of a “secret or unnamed state,” and therefore, embracing these layers and not underestimating them is the most important condition for being a “Kurdish Intellectual.” For example, intellectuals in nation-states (French, German, etc.) do not have the obligation to adhere to the first and second layers.

Today, an ideological slogan is constantly on everyone's lips: “Language is everything. Language is our identity.” This is certainly an important statement, but by ignoring the other layers, the obsessive repetition of “Zimanê me hebûna meye / Zimanê me nasname meye” (Our language is our existence / Our language is our identity) unfortunately does not contain a definition of a “Kurdish Intellectual.” This is a Jacobin approach. It means building the pyramid from top to bottom, which is another definition of “social engineering.” Currently, such a trend has emerged among Kurdish educated people, but a “Kurdish Intellectual” does not emerge from this trend.

A similar trend was started with the call, “Give your children Kurdish names.” Children given Kurdish names like Dilan, Şilan, Rojhılat, Rabun use their names with embarrassment in schools and workplaces; if they are lucky, they prefer to use their second given name. Should we include those who initiated such a campaign in the classification of “Kurdish Intellectuals”? Did Kurdish identity gain anything from such an approach? I consider these to be the “childhood illness of Kurdish Intellectuals.” The true “Kurdish Intellectual” profile should not arise from changing names, but from the spiritual heritage of the Kurdish struggle that has continued since Sheikh Ubeydullah.

We can also consider an example: Imagine someone who speaks Kurmanji or Zazaki perfectly but lives in France. If this person disregards the six layers that necessitate the definition of a “Kurdish Intellectual” and lives by Jean-Paul Sartre's rule of “Conscience,” they still would not be a “Kurdish Intellectual.” They would fall into the category of a “French Intellectual.” Being a “Kurdish Intellectual” has its own specific historical conditions and necessities.

At this stage, my readers might want to ask: “Can you give us an example of an ideal Kurdish Intellectual?” Of course! Qazi Muhammad and Mullah Mustafa Barzani are the two best examples that can be given. Both of them perfectly fulfilled all the requirements from the first layer to the sixth layer.

As you know, both Qazi Muhammad and Mullah Mustafa Barzani came from madrasah backgrounds. They did not receive their education in Europe or America. The foreign languages they knew were the languages of the peoples in their own geographies. In the 19th and 20th centuries, an independent Kurdish state or autonomy was on the agenda twice. Qazi Muhammad was the leader of the Mahabad Kurdish Republic, and Mullah Mustafa Barzani was its Chief of Staff. Qazi Muhammad, knowing that the Shah's army would harm his people if he did not go to his execution, refused the opportunity to escape and walked to the gallows with a courageous attitude, without begging. The spiritual values from the first and second layers, which I mentioned above, gave him this courage and loyalty to his people. Likewise, when Mullah Mustafa Barzani returned to Iraqi Kurdistan after the collapse of the Mahabad Kurdish Republic, he foresaw that the central Arab government would harm his people to capture him, embarked on a long march, and sought refuge in the Soviet Union. He did this not to save his own life, but to prevent harm to his people. Mullah Mustafa Barzani, even if for a short period, obtained autonomy rights in Iraq and had them accepted by the central government. These two great figures, whom those fitting today's “Kurdish Intellectual” stereotype would label as “reactionary, feudal,” are the owners of the greatest achievements of the Kurdish people. Through their speeches, actions, and advice, they more than fulfilled the requirements of being a Kurdish Intellectual.  (Here, I would like to draw your attention to one point: True Kurdish intellectuals are from madrasah backgrounds. I would like you to reflect on this.)

PART TWO

Esteemed Professor,

You imply that the word “Kürd” should be used instead of “Kürt,” and you state that it would be beneficial for me to read the article titled “Kürdce, KürD Hareketi ve KürT Aydınları” (Kurdish Language, Kurdish Movement, and Kurdish Intellectuals) by Prof. Dr. Aziz Yağan.

I have read the article in question carefully several times: I did not find Aziz Hoca's arguments strong or logical. In fact, I can state with a bit more courage that this approach carries within itself a thesis of an “inferiority complex.”

Esteemed Professor,

As you know, the name of languages changes according to each language. For example:

Kurdish                   Turkish                     English                         French

Tirkî                       Türkçe                               Turkish                           Turc

Kurmancî              Kurmançça                      Kurmanji                   Kurmandji

İngilizî                    İngilizce                            English                           Anglais

It is certainly possible to multiply the examples above. Every language has its own rules. For example, let's say I want to say “Kürt” in Turkish. Of course, it will be written as “Kürt.” Turkish vowel harmony necessitates this. For example, when we want to say “Kürt’ün evi” (the Kurd's house), Turkish vowel harmony also requires it to be written as “Bunun Kürd’ün evi” (This is the Kurd's house). That is, Turkish vowel harmony demands that we change the letter “T” to “D” when necessary. Aziz Hoca's suggestion is to consistently write “Kürd” instead of “Kürt.” In that case, I would like to ask this question: If we were to consider the phrase “Kürtlerin geleceği” (the future of the Kurds) according to Aziz Hoca's spelling rules, we would have to write “Kürdlerin geleceği,” which is not in accordance with Turkish vowel harmony.

Esteemed Professor,

Aziz Hoca's suggestion inherently contains a feeling of insecurity towards his own language and an “inferiority complex.” It is unacceptable. We cannot create a new rule by mixing Kurdish and Turkish phonetic rules.

Sincerely,