A call to conscience from Diyarbakır

On the last two days of 2010, Diyarbakır hosted President Abdullah Gül "in its own language." The first striking thing about that language was not its Kurdishness. Moreover, it turned out that this language, in the aspect we have not been accustomed to seeing for quite some time, was a "language unknown" far more than Kurdish is.

At every stage of the two-day tour you feel to your very marrow that the city is truly a city in all its difference and diversity, and, like all great cities, multilingual, many-voiced and many-dimensional.

There is no artificiality and no coercion in the affection shown to Gül. There are no troops bused in, but people waiting at every stage of the road block the road and show affection for Gül. Moreover, this display of affection is entirely unaffected by the discontent that the MGK declaration published the day before has created on the city's political agenda. Either the people of Diyarbakır see Gül as innocent of the negativities in these debates, or these debates are of no vital importance to the people welcoming Gül. In either case, we see the reality of "another Diyarbakır."

The language in the MGK declaration is in fact no different from the state language of the nineties. It is entirely natural that it caused discontent, because even the latest debates do not deserve such a reaction as expressed in the declaration. In theory nobody objects to the content of expressions such as "single nation" and "single state," but because these words were coded accompanied by thirty years of state-violence practice, they sound different in the ears of people here. That is why these words, which mean one thing in one context, can mean something entirely different in another. This also shows how actively the people's political hermeneutic faculty is working.

Gül explained with examples that Diyarbakır lags far behind other provinces in the region in economic development, and said that one cause of this is excessive politicization. Of course politics and identity are not unimportant, and to think that their problems will end once you fill their bellies is both a demeaning approach and does not explain the situation. But not everyone in Diyarbakır has identity and culture as their only problem; there are other Diyarbakırs, woven of entirely different demands, who think that such problems are exaggerated more than necessary. Undoubtedly one need not choose among the Diyarbakırs on the basis of this observation, but one should not regard as the "single Diyarbakır" someone who has somehow managed to raise his voice by suppressing other voices.

On the other hand, it must be said that the DTK's draft text on autonomy and bilingualism, which led first to the General Staff statement and then to the harsh MGK declaration, has also been taken more seriously than necessary. Those who opened the draft to discussion are saying anyway that it is only a draft and that they have no intention of discussing either secession or the official language. As for what is said about self-defense and the implementation of autonomy, these are things that cannot be made acceptable even to the Kurds of the region, let alone the state.

The majority of the people we spoke to in Diyarbakır say, "we would not want to live under such an autonomous administration, whatever it is called, even if it is called Kurdistan." In fact, seen from this angle, there is no point in being afraid even of an organization that has agreed to lay down arms, has opened to politics and has accepted the ground of discussion. On the ground of discussion, in the end it comes down to reason, the rational, the reasonable. From the moment the draft was opened to discussion, the desire for Turkey to be wholly one and together has come to be voiced by people more than at any time in Diyarbakır's history. Moreover, with the subject opened to discussion, we can say that political actors in the region have begun to emerge with all their differences, and the armed tutelage over Kurdish politics has begun to be questioned more loudly.

The people of Diyarbakır are more open to discussion about what it means to be "one nation" on a ground where differences are accepted. One should not mind that the concept of "single nation" grates on the ears of this city's people. Let no one doubt that an arrangement that "officially" accepts differences will develop a definition of "nation" that causes no discomfort, and that it will meet with a strong warm reception.

However, one must not pass without noting that everyone, from the most conservative to the most secular, from the most organization-minded to the most anti-PKK, shows complete consensus on the right to mother tongue. The mother-tongue demand is, of course, with its content and technique open to discussion, everyone's demand. Unlike autonomy and the other demands voiced only by the organization, we can generalize this matter as "the Kurds' demand" without the exceptionalism of "some Kurds." Turkey needs to treat this consensus as a given in approaching this problem. Otherwise, one must see that any package under this demand will make no contribution to the final resolution of the problem.

With Gül's visit to Diyarbakır, the state, at its highest office, has closely witnessed this reality.

Meanwhile, against those who say the opening policy is over and that nothing has been done about solving the Kurdish question, Gül made a very meaningful "call to conscience." "Put your hand on your conscience and tell me, can you say that nothing has been done for three years?"

Even if nothing has been done for three years, has not the Kurdish question, a taboo in every respect, been opened to discussion in all its dimensions? Once a problem has been opened to discussion, most of the road toward its solution has been covered. Nothing remains but to continue the discussion with decorum.