There is even such a thing as giving Özdemir İnce a lesson in the History of the Revolution

To tell the truth, I would not have wanted to, and I do not want to. Because I know very well that it is a futile effort, and I have said a great deal about the impossibility of explaining the nature of history to those who look at history through the window of superstition and legend. It is not something to be debated with people like Özdemir İnce, whose entire knowledge of history consists of rote notions that cannot go beyond the most primitive heroist approaches, but sometimes doing this becomes inevitable.

In fact the History of the Revolution has still not been fully discussed in Türkiye in general, nor can it be. Because standing in the way of discussing it are political sensitivities that have nothing to do with the science of history, entirely extra-scientific, and every topic opened is closed without being discussed. Frankly, I personally too would not want to talk much about a period that has become such a matter of sensitivity. I even find the attitude that there is little point in scratching at sensitivities, little point in producing causes of dispute and quarrel from the past to the present, closer to common sense. However, when some time ago a CHP deputy put forward an absurd claim that can be summarized as "there were no pious conservatives in the War of Independence, they were on the side of the occupiers, they even defended the Greek occupation," it became inevitable to open the pages of history a little in order to answer it.

Mehmet Akif's position in the War of Independence, and the fact that the Independence March is the most fundamental document on this nation's identity, history and self-awareness, is beyond dispute. It was the values and slogans underlined in that document that gave direction to and motivated the National Struggle and made it, in the eyes of the people, a struggle worth being martyred for.

In fact that document, beyond being a reference, also reflects the understanding that prevailed among those who took part in the National Struggle at the time. It is that understanding that led Mustafa Kemal to give sermons in mosques and, in assemblies and meetings, speeches of a heavily religious character. Just look at the rationale for deliberately timing the opening of the Assembly for a Friday, the prayers recited at the opening, the identity and dress of the participants, and the only thing to be understood is this:

The National Struggle was organized in mosques and took its fuel from people's religious feelings and enthusiasm. You cannot think of it apart from Kahramanmaraş, from Rıdvan Hoca, from Sütçü İmam. In Gaziantep and everywhere in Anatolia people joined the movement with a spirit of ghaza with which they had been familiar for centuries, and the Independence March portrayed this blessed enthusiasm of theirs perfectly. I am saying this for the first time: my late grandfather too, for this very reason, joined the ghaza as a soldier of the militias organized by the ulema of Siirt themselves, and together with many of his companions beside him rose to the rank of martyrdom.

Now, should we not ask what kind of cunning about the present those who put forward the nonsense that "there were no conservatives in the War of Independence" are after?

Özdemir İnce advocates basing things only on the first two stanzas of the Independence March, and in fact, if possible, abolishing all of it. That the mentality that later laid hold of the whole accumulation and legacy of the National Struggle describes Mehmet Akif as a reactionary is of course nothing new, but it is plain as day that this mindset, which has no liking for him, has nothing whatsoever to do, near or far, with the spirit of the National Struggle. The National Struggle is, first of all, the struggle to make the testimony of the adhans that make this homeland a homeland resound in these lands until eternity.

Since the Independence March says "Hakkıdır Hakk'a tapan milletimin istiklal" ("Independence is the right of my nation that worships God alone"), we too say: "What is aimed at is an independence that is the right of a nation that worships not this or that servant but only 'the Truth', and is resolved never to worship anyone else (...) It is a covenant that leaves no room for any human being, by becoming deified, to establish any order with which God would not be pleased." Özdemir İnce, by performing a wonderful "deconstruction," derives from the word "anyone" here the conclusion that I meant Atatürk. He even says I had this broad bean in my mouth (a thing I wanted to say) but could not get it out, whereas he got it out.

Now, when we say we worship no one but God, why might Özdemir İnce bring up Atatürk's name? Is he expecting us, when he brings it up, to hesitate and say "pardon, except Atatürk"? Worse, does Özdemir İnce perhaps worship Atatürk? Not content with worshiping, does he want us to worship too? Has Atatürk, in his eyes, turned into a god rather than a national hero and the founder of the Republic?

I have no objection; whoever wants can make whomever he wants a god for himself? Of course we do not recommend it, we say "there is no god to be worshiped but God" and give our advice. Of course no one can force us to worship anything other than the Truth. However, when there is no insult, no disrespect to Atatürk in any of my statements, why does he insistently try to extract such a "broad bean" from my mouth? And by means he does not understand at all, by convoluted methods like "deconstruction"?

From my words in that article and in my earlier article on the subject, that the history of the War of Independence or of the National Struggle cannot be written on the basis of the Nutuk alone, no disrespect to Atatürk, not even criticism, can be derived. Yet before Özdemir İnce, those of the same mindset had already declared me an enemy of Atatürk all at once.

What we said was quite clear, but we cannot even expect this mindset to understand: Mustafa Kemal, the author of the Nutuk, told the history of the National Struggle from his own point of view. It is certainly very valuable as a historical document. However, in that account there are many matters to which many of his comrades-in-arms, with whom he later fell into dispute, objected.

For example, extremely valuable people of vital importance in the National Struggle, such as Kazım Karabekir and Rauf Orbay, also have their own accounts of what happened, and they differ from that in the Nutuk. Moreover, that after the Nutuk was published no alternative account to this document was even given an opportunity for expression is a vital matter that people in pursuit of the truth in history must follow. Kazım Karabekir's account was not even given a chance; the book he wanted to tell was destroyed at the printing house without being allowed to meet a single reader. What happened to Tan Printing House, which began serializing it later, is well known. That is, even if there is a serious source problem concerning the history of the National Struggle, definite knowledge of this heavy censorship gives the historian a sufficient idea for evaluating the reliability of the information that has reached him.

Now let whoever wishes be content with the Nutuk, but to say that it is not sufficient for one who wants to do history on a more scientific basis is a simple methodological warning of history; history must be written by evaluating every possible source.

Of course, if the aim is really to write history. If not, if what we need is not history but ideology, and the legends and hagiographies at hand suffice for it, we of course have nothing to say to those who say so. Everyone's belief is his own.