Kurd û Çêkirina “Xwetiyên Neteweyî”

Kurd û Çêkirina “Xwetiyên Neteweyî”*

KAMAL SOLEIMANI – JI ÎNG: FEXRIYA ADSAY

Destpêk

Di vê nivîsê de, ez li ser çendîn nivîsên nekişifkirî yên rewşenbîrên kurd di rojnameya osmanî Tercüman-ı Hakikatê ya sala 1880 disekinim. Nivîsên rewşenbîrên kurd ên dawiya sedsala 19mîn resmekî îstisnaî yê tirs û hêviyên wan pêşkêşî me dike û her wiha pencereyekê vedike bo têgihiştina hişmendiya kurdên misilman. Ev nivîs hewldanên rewşenbîrên kurd ên bo dawa hebûna xwe ya esasî (primordial) ya wek neteweyeke cuda bin xêz dikin. Ev nivîsên nadir wek çavkaniyeke yekta xizmetê dikin bo têgihiştina şert û mercên siyasî yên di dewra serhildana Şêx Ubeydulah de.

Divê ez destnîşan bikim ku Tercüman-ı Hakikat1 nasnameya van rewşenbîrên kurd dernaxîne holê. Lê, divê ev rastî girîngiya van nivîsan zêde bike ji ber ku nivîskarên wan nivîsan nikaribûn bo rojnameyeke osmanî bêyî xwe sansur bikin binivîsînin. Ev nivîs şahidiya berovajiya nêrîna ku piranî li bende ye2 dike, bo misilmanên xwedî hişmendiyeke etno-neteweyî Îslam ne hokereke astengdêr bû. Nêrînên ku di beriya Yekem Şerê Cîhanê de etno-neteweperweriya misilmanan înkar dikin, bi tişta ku ji belgeyên arşîvên dewletê, rojnameyên osmanî, kovar û çavkaniyên nivîskî yên din ên liberdest derdikeve ne li hev in.3 A rast, heta radeyekê îdiayên hezkiriyên Frederick Millingen ê dawiya 1860an de angaşt dikir ew dikare “bêyî tirsa mubalaxekirinê piştrast bike ku hesta netewetiyê û eşqa serxwebûnê, wek hemû neteweyên din, dilê kurdan de jî kok berdaye, dipejirînim.”4 Dibêje encama ku gihiştiyê xwe dispêre “azmûnên wî yên şexsî, piştî ku bi gelek serokên tevgerên neteweyî yên kurd ketiye nav danûstendinê.”5

Bêyî ku ji nasnameya xwe ya misilmantiyê û baweriyên xwe feraxat bikin, tirk û yên ne-tirk dikaribûn xwe wek xwedî nasnameyên cuda bibînin ku di heman demê de rejima hemîdî her diçû bêtir hewl dida ev ên ne-tirk biçespînin ji ber ku ji bo temamiya dewletê wek tehdît dihatin qebûlkirin. Raperîna kurd a di 18806 de ligel hişmendiya îslamî hebûna daxwazên kurd ên etno-neteweperwer jî eşkere dike. Têkelbûna Îslamiyet û neteweperweriyê di belgeyên ku ji aliyê rewşenbîrên sekuler jî û Şêx Ubeydulahê Nehrî jî, serokê serhildanê, hatine hilberandin derdikeve holê.

Wek di destpêkê de jî hate gotin, ev gotar, bi riya analîzkirina çendîn nivîsên ji aliyê kurdan derbarê kurdan de hatine nivîsandin û di rojnameyên osmanî de hatine weşandin, wê li ser rabêja dînî neteweperwer a sedsala 19mîn hûr bibe. Bi vî awayî, ev xebat wan nivîsan dike nav peywenda wan a dîrokî. Ev çavkanî, ku di lêkolîneriya vî warî de qet bal nekişandiye, dikare pencereyekê veke ber bi xwe-têgihiştina bijareyên kurd ên hemdem.

Hilatina neteweperweriyên dijber

Divê di hişê mirov de be vejandina eleqeya bo saziya xelîfetiyê ji aliyê dewleta hemîdî destnîşan dike ku vê rejimê hewl dida hevsengiyekê çêbike li hemberî meylên neteweperwer ên ne-tirk piştî şerê osmanî-rûs di ya di 1877-1878an de. Bi qewlê Karpat, ev şer û Peymana Berlînê ya piştî wê “bû werçerxa girîngtirîn a dîrokî, çandî û derûnî di dîroka Împeretoriya Osmanî de. Bo cara yekem, him mirovdewletên osmanî him jî xelk lê hay bûn ku hilweşîna temamî ya dewleta osmanî ihtimaleke pir nêz e.”7 Kurd jî, wek parçeyên din yê civaka osmanî, kêm zêde difikirîn wê Împeretorî hilweşe û bi ihtimaleke mezin wê di nav Brîtanya û Rusyayê de bê dabeşkirin.8 Ew fikra ku Împeratorî dawiya wê nêz e di maweya şer de û piştî wê ket nav rojevê. Di ser re, hevbandoriya kurd û tirkan bandoreke pir neyênî9 hiştibû li ser kurdan. Şer li ser têkiliyên giştî û herêmê bandoreke mezin hiştibû, ji ber ku di maweya şer de van civatan li xeta dînî sef girtibûn. Di nav du salên şerê navbera Împeratoriyên Osmanî û Rûs de, ev cudatî û derzên civatî “xirabtir bûn bi îlankirina çar ku wê hemû xiristiyanan ji êrişên osmanî biparêze û kêfxweş bibe ew beşdarî artêşa rûs bibe. Di heman demê de, dewleta osmanî hemû herêmên xwe yên li herdu aliyên sînor bi çek kir.”10 Bandora şer pir berfireh bû û li herêmên ser sînoran ji aliyê “geşbûna hestên neteweperwer û mezhebî”11 ve mîratek berbiçav hişt li dû xwe. Piştî şer, welatê osmanî bi giştî û di taybet de li herêmên ermen/kurdan her diçû bêtir parçe dibû. Derzên civatî û têkçûna baweriya bi dewamiya Împeratoriyê cî vekir ji meylên kurdan ên neteweperwer, ku bersiveke hevkat bû bo neteweperweriya ermenan û zordestiya dewletên osmanî û qaçar ku bere bere zêde dibû. Lewma li hemberî vê paşxaneyê Abdulhamid hewl da xelîfetiyê vejîne. Ji ber vê, piştî şer ji aliyê rejima hemidî ve vejîna saziya xelîfetiyê bi qasî ku bersivek bû bo têkçûna baweriya misilmanan bi heyatiyeta împeratoriyê, bo windakirina parçeyê mezin ê gelheya ne-misilman jî bersivek bû.

Em werin ser herêmên ermen/kurdan ên Împeratoriyê, têkiliyeke pir tevlîhev sêbareyî hebû di navbera dewletan, kurd û ermenan de. Lazim e ne ermen ne kurd wek bitunên bi temamî yekgirtî, ne jî wek her dem û li her deverê bi eşkereyî ji hev cuda bin bên qebûlkirin. Di heman demê de, ji hin aliyan ve, cudatiyên dînî, bi awayê ku di maweya şer de hebûn, dikaribû bandor sedaqetên wan yên mezintir yên herêmborî (translocal) biguherîne. Lê, her koma çalak, eşraf û şexsiyetên xwedî nifuz hewl didan ji nav vê xumamiya piştî-şer derkevin û hêvî dikirin ji vê rewşê îstifade bikin bo avakirina dewleteke nû ku bikaribe bi desthilatdariya qewmê wan bi xwe re li hev rûne. Ji ber vê, di asta herêmî de her çiqas kurd û ermenan hewl didan bi ser ê din bikeve,12 dema dor dihat ser tarîfkirina têkiliyên xwe yên bi hev re di qada navneteweyî de, meseleyan wan diguherî.

Piştî şer, welatê osmanî bi giştî û di taybet de li herêmên ermen/kurdan her diçû bêtir parçe dibû. Derzên civatî û têkçûna baweriya bi dewamiya Împeratoriyê cî vekir ji meylên kurdan ên neteweperwer, ku bersiveke hevkat bû bo neteweperweriya ermenan û zordestiya dewletên osmanî û qaçar ku bere bere zêde dibû. Lewma li hemberî vê paşxaneyê Abdulhamid hewl da xelîfetiyê vejîne. Ji ber vê, piştî şer ji aliyê rejima hemidî ve vejîna saziya xelîfetiyê bi qasî ku bersivek bû bo têkçûna baweriya misilmanan bi heyatiyeta împeratoriyê, bo windakirina parçeyê mezin ê gelheya ne-misilman jî bersivek bû.

Ji bo ermen, osmanî û hêzên ewropî kurd ji eşîrên nîv-hov ku heyranê rêbiriyê bûn, pê ve ne tiştek bûn. Gotinên rojnameyên tirkî yên wê demê bo kurdan wek heywan –binavkirina “kuyruklu kürtler,” yanê kurdên biterrî şahidiya vê rastiyê dikin.13 Neteweperwerên kurd jî bi çavekî baştir li kurdan nedinihêrîn. Li gor wan, hebûna kurdan wek kolektîvîteyeke siyasî derewek bû ku ji aliyê rayedarên brîtanî û osmanî hatibû çêkirin û lewma,

Raffi,14 navdartirîn ramangêrê ermen ê neteperwer, piştî şerê osmanî-rûsan 1877-1878 di nivîsên xwe de angaşt dikir ger tiştekî wek ‘yekitiya kurdan hebe’ ew ancex ‘xewna’ rayedarên osmanî yên li Stenbolê an binemayek ‘xeyalî’ ya konsulên brîtanî bûn ku, li gor wî, herdu alî jî faziletên çandî yên kurdan bi kar tînin û ji bo armancên siyasî peyva Kurdistan îcad kirine.15

Rewşenbîrekî din ê bi navê Tanil Baxdasarov jî dema rojnameyeke osmanî bi çavekî nêz-kurd rexne dikir digot, “bifikirin dikare çi were serê xwînerên rojnamegerekî ku hewl dide îspat bike hejmara kurdên hov, kujer, neinsanî û barbar ji ya neteweya ermen zêdetir e.”16

Di salên 1880yî de dema neteweperwerên ermen konsulê brîtanî bi awayekî tund rexne dikir ku tiştekî xeyalî bi navê Kurdistan afirandiye, arşîvên brîtanî difikirîn ku wê bikaribin xwe bispêrin neteweperwerên ermen ji bo bidestxistina agahiyên rast ên derbarê realiteya li ciyê bûyaran. Yek di van belgeyan de, ermen di sê beşan de tên dabeşkirin: gundî, burokratên bo dewleta osmanî dixebitin û neteweperwerên ku dixebitin bo avakirina dewleteke ermen. Beşa sêyem wek kesên ku “fikrên wan ên welêt temsîl dike, û ger em bixwazin fêr bibin çi diqewime divê em berê xwe bidin wan” tê qalkirin.17 Ev, dema mijar dîtina wan ya derbarê kurd û gelê li wê herêmê be, asta nifuza neteweperwerên ermen a li ser rayedar û misyonerên brîtanî dide xuyakirin.18

Dema hêzên mezin komisyoneke bi navê Komisyona Kurdistanê ava kirin da ku Madeya 61 ya Peymana Berlînê bi cî binin, aktorên ne-herêmî yên kurd û ermen di muxalefeta berdêl de dengekî bilind radikirin.19 Ermen û kurd hêvî dikirin bikaribin ji rewşa piştî şer ji bo avakirina dewletên xwe yî serbixwe îstifade bikin. Lê xuya ye her du aliyan jî lempeya kesk û piştgiriyek muhtemel dîtine ji hêzên mezin ku ji bo bicîanina nihayî ya armancên xwe yên siyasî ev heyatî bû. Di encamê de, ermen bi taybetî hêvîşikestî û bihêrs bûn dema ne ku tenê navê komîsyonê lê bihîstin li herêmê konsula brîtanî ya nû vebûbû jî navê Kurdistanê pê ve bû. Li ber çavên ermenan ev naskirineke zimnî ya kurdan û kurdbûna vê axê bû. Wan “gazin kirin ji hukimeta brîtanî ku bi tayinkirina konsulekî bo Kurdistanê hestên hemû ermenan dabûn ber lingan.”20 Diyar e ku ermenan dixwestin navê wê komisyona Ermenistanê be.21 Binavkirina herêmê bûbû mijareke rikberiyê di navbera van civakan de, ku 1880 de di rojnameyên osmanî de rê li ber derbirîna bertekên kurdan vekiribû.

Bertekên manend di rojnameyên osmanî de di çendîn nivîsên cuda de rû da, hemû ji aliyê şexsiyetên kurd ên cuda hatibûn nivîsandin.22 Ji ber ev bertek deqên nadir, ku di vê serdemê de ji aliyê kurdan bixwe hatine nivîsandin, pêşkêşî me dikin û alikariya me dike em fam bikin ka rewşenbîrên kurd xwe û êdinên xwe çawa didîtin. Nivîsên wan an hebûna neteweperweriya kurdan destnîşan dikin an divê wek “anomalî û dijmînak [û] rêşaşkirinên ji hin bendewariyan bên dîtin, ew bendewarî di paradigmaya23 ku bi gelemperî wek ‘eşîrtiya kurd’ tê qebûlkirin, şênber dibin.”

Rojnameyên osmanî di 1880 de24 di asteke seyr de tengijînên etnîk û neteweyî derdixîne holê. Mirov dikare îdia bike neteweperweriya kurd, ku li herêmê dikare wek a şiyantirîn bê dîtin, jixwe li ber çavan bû.25 Belkî cara yekem, hin gotarên nêz-kurd, ku ji aliyê rewşenbîrên kurd ên takekes ve hatine nivîsandin, di rojnameyên osmanî de xuya dikirin. Ev nîşandêra rewşeke xeter bû ku neteweya serdest xwe tê de dît. Dema bi bendewariya dewleta serbixwe ya Ermenistanê û wek encama muhtemel a Peymana Berlînê parçebûna Împeratoriyê bixwe hesiyan, bijareyên osmanî wek ewên derdora Tercüman-ı Hakikatê dengê xwe bilind kirin ji kurdan re, ku hê jî di rojnameyên din ên osmanî de wek heywan an “kurdên biterrî” dihatin binavkirin.”26 Digel ku dem bi dem destûr didan hin nivîsên nêz-kurd bên weşandin, paragrafa jêr dilnexwaziya rewşenbîrên tirk tespît dike di sekna wan a nêz-kurd de dema dibêjin “hevalên me [yî di] Curia Durian27 de bi ewan re ne ku jê re kurd, bi giştî heydût (umumen haydut) dibêjin. Lê, dîsa jî Tercüman-ı Hakikatê wek nêz-kurd28 nîşan dide û bi awayekî seyr rojnameya me dax dike.29

Her çiqas ev paragraf pêşbaziya civatî, hişmendiya etnîk, û nêrînên siyasî yên bijareyên osmanî bixwe destnîşan bike jî, ew fama bijareyan a derbarê êdinên hiyerarşîzebûyî de jî eşkere dike. Bi xwendina vê paragrafê re, mirov bi hêsanî dikare ferq bike ku kurd di ser ermenan re tê girtin lê ne ewqas ku bijareyên osmanî/tirk kurdan jixwe bihesibînin. Heta li hemberî ermenan jî, dînê kurdan hê jî di navbera herduyan de bi awayekî girêyek e, etnîsîteya kurd û mesafeya wan a ji navendê kendaleke bêîmkan temsîl dike. Lewma diyar e nivîskarên Tercüman-ı Hakikatê aciz bûne ji ber binavkirina nêz-kurd, çiqasî ev îdia yên ermenan be jî tehdîd eşkere bû bo neteweperweriya fermî. Digel ku xelkê perîferiyê li hemberî ne-misilmanan dikaribû wek emsalên hev ên misilman bên hesibandin, bijareyên osmanî nikaribûn tehemul bikin da ku asta wan bê daxistin û ji ber ku ew wan wek paşverû û hov dibînin an bi qewlê Karen Horney, wek “xuyanga wan a biçukdîtî”30 xuya dikirin. Têra xwe balkêş e, xelkên perîferiyê, kurd jî tê de, di şerê li hemberî ne-misilmanan de tirk wek emsalên xwe yên misilman, lê di heman demê de wek tirkên zordest ku serdestiya xwe li ser ên din ferz dikir, didîtin.31

Rewşenbîrên kurd bertek didan neteweperweriya ermenan ji ber ku wan ew bo neteweperweriya xwe an bo berjewendiyên kurdên osmanî bi giştî wek tehdîdekê didîtin.32 Wan aciziya xwe ya ji ber teswîrkirina bijareyên osmanî ya bo kurdan wek heydûd û hov jî venedişartin. Dema tengijînên ji ber bicîanîna Peymana Berlînê zêde bûn, rojnameyên osmanî, bi taybetî jî Tercüman-ı Hakikatê biryar da hinekî destûr bidin derbirîna nêrînên şexsiyetên kurd. Dema ihtimala bicîanîna Madeya 61ê ya Peymana Berlînê zêde bû, ev nîqaş, ku xemên şexsiyetên kurd nîşan didin, di çapameniya osmanî de xuya kirin. Diyar e kurd lê hay bûbûn ku reformên Madeya 61ê dane destpêkirin ku wê bibe platformeke biyanî bo afirandina dewleta ermen a muhtemel û navê Kurdistan jî winda bibe.33 Navdarekî kurd ê nenas bû deng dida vê tirsa di nav kurdan de dema diyar dikir “qewmên herî hov ên dinyayê jî ne li dijî reformê ne. Lê, ger ev reformên Xwedê girabî wê bibin wek ên li Rûmelyaya Rojhilat”ê û rê li ber kuştinên komî yên misilmanên herêmê veke, ew çax “kurd wê wan bi temamî red bikin.”34 Didomand digot wê kurd ser riya pêşengên xwe û bi hev re li hember ferzkirinên vî awayî şer bikin.”35 Di nivîseke din de dihat îdiakirin ku ermen daxwazên xwe wek reform bi nav dikin ku bikaribin Ermenistanê ava bikin. “Dawiya dawî,” digot nivîskar, ermen îdia dikin ev der Ermenistan e û cihê kurdan li van deran tune ye; divê an hûn koç bikin Îranê an bibin teb’aya me. … Ma ev edalet e? Qewmek dikare ji bo xwe xilas bike hebûna yeka din tehdîd bike?”36

Ev tirs û nêrînên nîqaşwarî ji aliyê herdu aliyan ve di jinûvexwendina dîrokan de û di xêzkirina sînorên cografîk yên muxayel de di warê binavkirin û jinûvebinavkirina herêmê de jî dihatin diyarkirin.37 Nîqaşa ka navê rast ê herêmê divê Kurdistan be an Ermenistan be ku bû sedema şerê civatî ku piştî vê dewletê di 1881ê de li Bedlîsê bikaranîna van navan qedexe kir.38

Ev nivîs hin caran li teswîra kurdan a di çapameniya osmanî, ermen û ewropî de bi wekhevî rexne digrin û projeksiyon heman nêrînên neyênî yên rewşenbîrên kurdan ên derbarê xwe de bi ser cîranên xwe ve -ermen- didin xuyakirin. Li gor nivîsa yekem, rojnameyen nêz-ermen îlan kirine kurd li dijî reformên ku Madeya 61ê merc kirine, ji ber ku, ger ev reform bên bicîkirin, kurd wê nikaribin tekane zen’etê xwe -talan û diziya ermenan- êdî bi cî bînin.39 Nivîskarê yek ji van nivîsan destnîşan dike ku welatparêziya wî (hamiyet-i milliye) û şewq û hewesa wî ya etnîk (‘asabiyet-i kavmiye) wî mecbûr dike van îdiayan bêbersiv nehêle.40 Niha, van nivîskaran hewl didan ji aliyekî ve dîroka neteweyên (qewm) xwe ji nû ve binivîsînin ji aliyekî ve jî êdinên xwe, yanê ermen, bi awayên bêrûmetdar taswîr bikin.

Lewma, yek ji wan ermenan wek nexwende, bêdîrok, bêziman an bê çand teswîr dike.41 Lê, nivîs îdia dike, ev ên li Stenbolê rûdinin li aliyekî ve, ermen gelek caran ji kurdan paşverûtir in.42 Şexsiyetekî din ku wek kurdekî mûteber tê nasandin di destpêka nivîsa xwe de bêavantajiya rewşa kurdan destnîşan dike. Bêyî ku rave bike ka berê çima di rojnameyên tirkî de xuya nedikirin,43 nivîskar diyar dike “niha em baştir li rewşa xwe hay bûne ji ber ku me nikaribû xwe bigihanda çapameniyê, heta ya tirkî jî, ermen dikaribûn bi hêsanî têkevin nav çapameniya ewropî û kurdan ku wek hov teswîr bikin.”44 Dû re dest bi berawirdkirina kurd û ermenan dike û îdia dike kurd ji aliyê çandî ve di ser ermenan re ne, ku tê de layengiriyeke nijadperest dikare bê hîskirin. Dibêje kurd bi erebî, farisî û zimanê xwe dizanin, ermen jî bi hezaran sala ye nîv-wehşî (nime vahşi) mane bêarmanc li deşta nezaniyê digerin.45

Di nivîseke din de, wek ‘A.T.’ îmzekirî, ermen tên tawanbarkirin ku kurd wek “ji arezûya pêşveçûnê mehrûm” dax kirine. Ji aliyê din ve, heman nivîskar îdia dike “kî ermenan nas bike şahidiyê dike, ku dema bi kurdan re tên berawirdkikin, ermen çiqas li paş mane.”46 Îdiayên ‘A.T.’yên hayjixwetune bêhed in. Ev teswîra wî ya ermenan çi ye? Ewqas zêde diçe, dibêje kurdên koçer gelek qedrê huner û perwerdeyê dizanin, têra xwe xwedî belagat û şairane ne, û “em dikarin bêjin tu netewe (millet) negihiştiya asteke wisa bişeref.”47

Digel ku kurd xwediyê wesfên cuda ne, ermen tenê wek tiştên çekur (solid) in, ka wê çawa ji van reforman îstifade bikin? … Beriya her tiştî, zimanê wan bixwe tune ye. Ger yekî/a ermen wê bibe mirov, lazim e ew zimanê gelên din fêr bibe… Ji zaroktiya xwe ve bi tirkên osmanî didin distînin û hemû jiyana xwe di daireyên dewletê û dîwanan de derbas dikin, dema bi tirkî dipeyivin, hê jî bîna ermenkî (ermeni rayihası) ji wan tê.48

Nivîsên ‘A.T.’ nîşan dide ku di her civatê de bijareyên neteweperwer çawa êdinên xwe tenê ‘ne-insan’ dibînin. Ev cure “taybetiyên hevpar ên hestbar bi helwestên endamên koma hevyaz (ingroup) ên hemberî endamên koma dijber”49 re elaqedar in. Berteka ‘A.T.’ fikrên nijadperest ên wê demê û adetî, têkiliya xav a navbera nijad, ziman û pêşveçûnê nîşan dide. Ev îlaweya aciziya derûnî ya tawanên wek hov û neşaristaniyê ye jî di demeke wisa de ku daxên bi vî awayî dikaribû were wê astê ku bên gindêrkirin nav halê xumamî ya “hovîtî”yê –û qedera wan têkeve nav lepê hêzên şaristanîkir.

‘A.T.’ xuya ye di warê kanonên wêjeyî yên ewropî de têra xwe şareza ye û diyar e çendîn deqên wêjeya ewropî werdigerand. Di vegotina wî ya derbarê kurdan de, li berawirdkirina zimanên kurdî û ermenkî û înkarkirina ermenan nasekine; gaveke wêdetir diçe ziman û wêjeya kurdî bi ya ewropiyan re dike dema dibêje:

[Divê ji] geşbûna bêqisûr ya awarteyî (fevk al-‘ade mükemmeliyeti ile) ya zimanê be ku em bixwazin çi zimanî fêr bibin, bi hêsanî fêr dibin û wek ku zimanê me bixwe be dipeyivin… Bêqisûriya zimanê me û berhemên me yî wêjeyî û dîwanên me yî helbestî -ku bi yên Lamartine, Homer û Voltaire re dikare bên qiyaskirin- dike ku ez berhemên kanonîk ên ewropî wergerînim bo kurdî.50

Tişta balkêştirîn ew e ku, di vê dewrê de, dîrok çawa tê amrazkirin û asta bilind a geşbûna zimanekî û kûrahiya rehên wê di dîrokê de bo rewakirina îdiayên siyaseta neteweperwer tên bikaranîn. Ji ber vê, her li ku derê hestên neteweperwer peyda dibin, dîrok û rabirdûya gelan be kêf û coş tên radîkalîzekirin û neteweyîkirin û hewldanên van rewşenbîrên kurd bo jinûvenivîsandina dîrokê ne qewimîneke bi serê xwe bû. Lê, di jinûvenivîsandina ‘rabirdûya xwe ya qedîmtirîn’ de jî, şaristaniya ewropî ciyekî mezin digirt. Lewma, kengî hebûna neteweyekî bihata texeyulkirin, bi awayê fantastîktirîn û anakronîktirîn be jî, lazim bû hin taybetiyên şaristaniya modern a ewropî bikira malê xwe. Ji ber ku, teşebisa jinûvenivîsandina dîroka neteweyê bo nîşandana ku ‘em’ di rabirdûyê de bi awayekî cuda şaristanî bûn eyn wek ewropiyên îro. Li vir “neteweyetî” dibêje Uri Ram “wek çîrokekê ye ku gel derbarê xwe de vedibêje da ku wateyekê bide cîhana xwe ya civakî.”51 Di vir de, di mijara ‘şaristanîbûn’ê de bi taybetî xwe dikin asta neteweyên din da ku daxwazên xwe yî siyasî yên hemdem rewa bikin. Her wiha, ‘rabirdûya me ya îslamî,’ ku ‘me’ ji misilmanên din jî cuda dike û di nav hevdînên ‘me’ de şahidiya ciyê ‘me’yî cuda dike, potansiyela ‘me’ ya pêşveçûnê –nebenabeya serdema neteweperweriya modern, ku wek şertê qebûlbûyîna wek neteweyekê dihat dîtin, destnîşan dike.

Nivîsa ‘A.T.’ dibe mînaka vî hestî dema nîqaş dike:

gelek gelên li Iraqa ereb,52 Heleb û hemû herêmên li Şamê, çi tirk be çi ereb be… bêyî kurdî bizanibin nikarin bibin ulema. Di nav van ulemayan de filozofên wisa hene ku nîqaşên wan ên teolojîk wê Voltaire -ger ji gora xwe rabe û rastî wan were- têk bibira. Lewma wê çare nemaya li hember wan xwe bitewanda û raseriya wan bipejiranda.53

Ev çend hevok ne bi tenê qala zimanê kurdî û statuya wî ya di ser ên din re dike lê raserî êdin îma dike xwendebûna di zimanê kurdî de nîşaneyeke statuya raser a ilmê ye di nav ne-kurdan de, wek ku ew li herêmên misilman ên li jor zimanê hevpar be. A din, îdia dike ku ew ne bi tenê li gorî pîvanên kevneşop ên ilmê Îslamiyetê; hevnasîna Voltaire bi asta ilmê wan re wê ew jî li pêş wan tarûmar bikira. Ev mubalaxa û şaşiyên dîrokî yên di îdiayên wî de, bi awayekî, dikare taybetmendiyeke hevpar a dîroknûsiya neteweperwer be. Lê li vir tişta divê jê hay hebe ev e ku ilmê dînî yê kevneşopî tê berzkirin û bi xwe-mezinkirina etnîk a îdiayên modernîst û etno-neteweperwerî yên li jor re tê yekkirin.

Ev îdiayên derbarê xwezaya tevkariya kurdî ya di rabirdûya îslamî de, ji dîroka misilmantiyê ya giştî tê veqetandin, gelek balkêş e. Ev rabirdûya îslamî bêyî referansên bo misilmanên din, an heta rabirdûya wan a hevpar a dîrokî, çandî an dînî, dibe kurdî. Vegotina neteweyê bi riya jinûveşîrovekirina tecrubeya hevpar pêk tê. Lê ev jinûveşîrovekirin bi tarîkirina aliyên hevpar ên wê dîrok û tecrubeyê, bi vederkirina êndin ji vegotinê ku xizmeta berdewamiya mîrata neteweyî ku tê gotin bike û li wê rûnê, pêk tê. Di vê dîroknûsiya neteweperwer de, ne bi tenê qehremanên dînî wek Selahedîn ji nû ve xwedî lê tê derketin, lê yek ji girîngtirîn şerê xiristiyan-misilmanan wek serfiraziya qewmê kurdan tê pêşkêşkirin. A din, para ne-kurdan a di vê azmûna taybet de bi awayekî xurt tê efsaneyîkirin. “Ev vegotin wate û ewlehiyê dide hebûna monoton û jiyana rojane bi ‘qedera neteweyî’ ve girê dide.”54 Jê wêdetir, dabeşbûna xumamî ya di navbera kurd û ermenan de, meseleyek ku wê çaxê taybetî li herêmên çolyar dîroknas û misyoner gêj dikir, bi giraniya rabirdûya îslamî ber bi aliyekî ve çû. Lê, ev e ku “nasnameya siyasî çawa her tim û bêje nebêje siyaseta afirandina cudatiyê ye. Kesek heta radeya ku ew ne mislimanekî bosnayî an xirvat be, sirbekî bosnayî ye.”55

Ev nivîskar heta diçe kokên şaristaniya Ewropayê, ku wê çaxê bi gelemperî wek ‘Şaristanî’ dihat behskirin, dike kurd. Lê belê, bi vî awayî, roleke kurdan a cuda dûpat dike. Nêzîkbûneke bi vî awayî bo şaristaniya ewropî, îdiaya koka wê misilman an hevpar, bi dû re wê di nav misilmanên modernîst û erebên neteweperwer de hinekî populer bibûya. Lê, em dikarin bêjin ev cure xwendina kurdên neteweperwer a derbarê rabirdûya îslamî de nisbeten îstisnaî ye. Nivîskarê gotarê hin beşên dîroka îslamî jî ji nû ve vedibêje di qewmê kurdan de dijmêre wek koka şaristaniya ewropî ya îro dema dibêje ku

niha jî dîrokzanên rojavayî qebûl dikin ku eyubiyan, wek Selahedîn, sedsalekê bi xaçparêzan re şer kirin û ewropî xistin riya şaristaniyê. … Çend sal berê Mr. Gladstone -di gelek axaftinên xwe yî li ser Rojhilat ên bi referansên barekirî bo Selahedîn- xizmeta kurdan a bo Şaristaniyê qebûl kir, pesnê qewmê kurd da û ev qewmê esîl (necîb) berz kir. … Ji riwangeyeke etnolojîk ve, kes dikare navekî ji qewmê ermen nîşan bide ku ewqas bi hurmet hatibe qalkirin- di [çavkaniyên] dîroka Ewropayê de, çi kevn çi nû.56

Digel ku ev gotar ne pir zêde ne, nivîskarên wan hewl didan ji kêm derfetan îstifade bikin û ji bo ‘vegotina neteweyê xwe’ lazim bû dawa xwe bi temamî ispat bikin. ‘A.T.’ hewl daye bi awayekî ‘dîroka şaristaniya kurd’ ji nû ve binivîsîne da ku şopên mezin ên kurdan di dîrokê de nîşan bide û êndin wek tune be an li gor dîroknûsiya xwe ya neteweperwer “Şaristani”yê teswîr bike. Hin nivîskarên din jî hebûn ku hewl didan nexşeyeke Kurdistanê ya edebî û her dem sabit ku ji mêj ve hebûye. Di gotarekê de, ku wek du beşan bi sernavê “Kurdistan an Ermenistan?” hatibû weşandin,57 beşa yekem li ser erdnigariya Kurdistanê û ya duyem li ser etnografyaya kurd bû, hewlên rewşenbîrên kurdan bo nivîsandina erdnigariyeke dîrokî ku îdiaya mesafeya zêdetirî du hezar salan dikirin. Li vir, “naveroka babetî ya rabêjên nasnameya neteweyî avakirina rabirdû, niha û dahatûyeke hevpar; çandeke hevpar; welatekî hevpar,58 û têgeha mirovê neteweyî.”59 jî dihewîne.

Bi dupateke bi vî awayî ya li ser yekitiya ezelî ya erdnigariya Kurdistanê, wek ku bê pêşbînîkirin, heta endamtiya Kurdistana hemdem a di Împeretoriya Kurdistanê bi temamî “tê jibîrkirin”60 Ji ber vê sedemê, divê ev îdia wek bertekên besît ku bi qayişkêşiya civatî ya ermen û kurdan re sînorkirî neyê dîtin. Ev çavkanî, digel ku gelek kêm in, rewşeke ji berteka misilmanan (osmanî/tirk/kurd) bo neteweperweriya ermenan wêdetir eşkere dike. Bi vî halî, li ser erdnigariya Kurdistanê, tevî ku serpêhatiya gelemperî ya ‘îroya dîrokî ya ‘bi tekaneyî nasbar’ (uniquely identifiable) a neteweya ‘şexsîkirî’ ku şopa wê diçe ‘demên efsaneyî’61 vedibêje jî, sînorên erdnigariya neteweyekê jî tê bawerkirin ku ji yên neteweyên dikare bê cudakirin.’

Mirov dikare armancên van hewldanên (jinûve)nivîsandina erdnigariya dîrokî wisa bi rêz bike: 1) îspat bike ku kurd ne hov in û lewma îdiayê wan ên bo axê rewa ye. Ev bo tesdîqkirina tekane xwedîtiya dîrokî ya kurdan a vê axê tê kirin. Wek ku yek ji van nivîskaran diyar dike, kurd wek civak “nezan û hov tên pênasekirin; niha divê hevalên me şoke bibin dema bibînin kurdên hezkiriyên ilmên wek dîrok û erdnigariyê û di nav belgeyên osmanî de axa neteweya me62 sînorên wê çawa hatine danîn.”63 2) Îdiaya ku kurd neteweyeke cuda ne. Navdarên kurd bawer dikirin ku ew li aliyê şaş ê şerê şaristaniyê de ne. Wan hest pê dikirin bo qedera wan a hevpar şer dikaribû bibe hokereke diyarker. Yek ji van nivîskaran bi eşkereyî ve ev tirsa xwe ya hevpar vedigot di nivîsa xwe de “em” divê dawî li “bêdengiya xwe bînin li hember ev derew û îdiayên derbarê gelê me (kavmiyetimize) de tên nivîsandin. Niha, ji ber bêdengiya me, em bedelê vê pênasekirina di cîhana medenî de, yanê Ewropa, didin. Em mecbûr in bêdengiya xwe bişkênînin.”64 Temama rabêja şaristanîbûnê ji bo rewakirina îdiayên siyasî yên dijber bû û bo piştrastkirina ka kîjan civat têra xwe ‘wêrar bûye’ (evolved) da ku bikaribe layiqî dewletbûnê bê dîtin. Delîleke mezin a vê nêrînê ev îdiaya ku ermen bixwe “înkar nakin ew amade ne xilasiya xwe ya siyasî veguherînin bikin daweyeke ku biryara wê ji aliyê ewropiyan bê dayin û wê bavêjin nav rîskê.”65 3)Îspat bikin ku ev ax aîdî kurdan e û dawî li “mezintirîn bêedaletî”yê bînin ku kurd dihatin “biçûkxistin ji ber binavkirina welatê xwe wek Kurdistan.”66

Digel ku berdengên sereke yên van nivîsan ermen bûn, wan bi awayekî eşkere wek neteweyeke cuda qala kurdan dikirin. Lê xwe-sansurkirina di nivîsên bo rojnameyên dewletê de divê bê qalkirin. Ev nivîs diyar e taybetî neyartiya dewletê nakin. Lê, kurd bi gelemperî wek qewmiyeteke primordial a cuda tê şayesandin û ji hemû misilmanên din, tirkên osmanî jî tê de, tên veqetandin. Bi vê, di jinûvenivîsandina kurdan bo têkiliya xwe ya dîrokî ya bi osmaniyan re ev xal zelal dibe. Kurd firehbûna Împeratoriya Osmanî ya di sedsala 16mîn de ku encama wê de Kurdistan jî ket bin darê Împeratoriyê, ji nû ve şîrove dikin. Ev wek kurdan bi dilxwazî hakimiyeta osmanî pejirandine, tê vegotin.67 Vegotineke revîzyonîst a bi vî awayî zayina netewetiya kurd a muxayel di rabirdûyeke dûr de disêwirîne an wê davêje wir. Wekî din, li vir ‘civata muxayel’ ji osmanî aktoriyeke dîrokî û hebûneke serbixwe bi dest dixe –hema bêje wek şirîkekî bo yekitiyê di rabirdûyê de. Di destpêka sedsala 20mîn de jî rewşenbîrên kurd îdiayên bi vî rengî dubare dikirin. Jê wêdetir angaşt dikirin, ji ber ku kurdan “di rabirdûyê de ev yekitî bi dilxwazî pejirandine” -di serdema netewe-dewletê de- ferz e ku tirk di bidestxistina serxwebûna xwe de alikariya kurdan bikin.68

Wek berê jî hatibû diyarkirin, di van nivîsan de endîşeya derbarê ‘rabirdû’yê de piranî hewleke tamandina daxwazên siyasî yên hemdem bi rewatiyê bû. Girêdanî û jêqetînên bijarte yên ji cîhanê û dîroka îslamî yên van nivîskaran armanc dikir bo kurdan wek aktorên medenî rabirdûyekê biafirînin. A din, ew hewlek bû bo rewakirina planên hevpar û serbixwe yên dema niha –beyankirina hişyarbûna kurdan. Lewma, dihat gotin ku “em ê jî planên xwe yî bo dahatûyê îlan bikin û vê piştrast bikin.”69 Nivîskar dewam dikin û angaşt dikin “em niha bi taybetî bi endîşe ne û haydarbûna me ji tebîeta rasteqîn a hewldanên hêzên mezin ku wek reform propagandaya wan tê kirin… bo diyarkirina dahatûya xwe me bêtir bibiryar dike.”70 Lê, nivîskar hişyar dike ku şaşiyeke ji vê mezintir tune ye ku bifikire “welatê Kurdistanê ji azamet û heyecanê bêpar e (heyecandan ‘ari) û wek ku hûn hemû dizanin, pirsgirêka Şêx Ubeydulah Efendî hê jî xurt e.”71 Ev gotina dawî destnîşan dike ku ev rewşenbîr plana stratejîk a Şêx Ubeydulah bo serxwebûnê destek dikin û jê bi hêvî ne.

* Ev peyv ji Christopher Houston hatiye deynkirin, Kurdistan: Crafting of Nation Selves (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2008).

1 Tercüman-ı Hakikat, rojnameyeke rojane, li Stenbolê di navbera 1878-1921 dihat weşandin.

2 Brwd. Taner Akçam, From Empire to Republic: Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide; Niyazi Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1964); Hasan Kayalı, Arabs and Young Turks: Ottomanism, Arabism, and Islamism in the Ottoman Empire, 1908-1918; Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey 2ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1968).

3 Wek mînak di 1901ê de Abdurrahman Bedirxan dibêje: Ey kurdno! Wek hûn dizanin, hemû netewe ji bo qenciya xwe dixebitin. Pir xirab e ku kurdan her tim xizmeta biyaniyan kirine. We bi salan xizmeta tirkan kirine, çi ket kîsê we? Dema beramberî van zalimtiya dewletê hûn nîşanekê an rutbeyeke leşkerî werdigrin, hûn hemû muameleyên neadil ji bîr dikin. … Dibêjî qey em ji bo xizmeta biyaniyan bikin hatine afirandin. Pênc sedsal berê li welatê me yek tenê tirk tunebû. Hemû tirk ji Turanê hatin welatê me, û li welatê me serdestiya me kirin. … Tirk û Siltan her çi nav û unwanê dixwazin bi kar bînin bila bînin; lê Xwedê em ji bo xizmeta wan neafirandiye. … Wext hatiye; divê em ji bo karê xwe û rizgariya zarokên xwe bixebitin. Ev şerm e bo kurdan, ku bi mêrxasî û comerdiya xwe tên naskirin, bibin xizmetkarê dewleteke zalim. Demek berê dewleteke me jî hebû, azadiya me hebû. Lê, şerm e ku, ev bextewarî ji nav destê me çû, niha em di nav destê qeşmeran de ne. Bêtifaqiya me sedema sereke ye. Ji ber ku em kurd neyarên hevdu ne, tirk ji vê îstifade dikin. … Em çima di bin hukimdariya tirkan de dimînin [?] … Em rewşa ermenan binêrin, ew amade ne bi we re hevalbendiyê bikin. Hûn ê bi hev re dahatûyeke baştir formule bikin û bi hev re xwe ji zordariya tirkan xilas bikin. … Bi izna Xwedê, rojekê, ez ê bixwe derfetekê bibînim û ji aliyê Îranê werim ser sînorê Kurdistanê. Dû re, Xwedê bêje erê, ez ê kurdan rizgar bikim ji xizmetkariya romiyan, û nîşanî dinyayê bidim ku kurd ne kujerê xelkên bindest in. Kurdistan, hej. 27, 13 Adar 1901, wer. bo îng û nql. Deniz Ekici, “Imagination: The Making of Kurdish National Identity in the Kurdish Journalistic Discourse” (University of Exeter, 2015): 129-131.

4 Osman Seifi û Frederick Millingen, Wild Life among the Koords (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1870), 213.

5 H.b.

6 Bnr. Kamal Soleimani, “Islam and Competing Nationalisms: The Kurds and the Turks in the Late Ottoman Era,” (Teza Doktorayê, Columbia University, 2014).

7 Kemal H. Karpat, The Politicization of Islam: Reconstructing Identity, State, Faith, and Community in the Late Ottoman State, Studies in Middle Eastern History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 153.

8 FO 195/1316: No. 24, Siyasî (nehênî), ji Clayton bo Trotter: Raşid Beg [Qeymeqamê Şadaxê] yek ji wan kesan bû ku hatibû şandin bo Stenbolê û di vegerê de ji Şêx Ubeydulah re gotiye Împeratoriya Tirk li ber mirinê ye û wê di navbera hêzên ewropî, bi taybetî Brîtanya û Rusya de bê parvekirin, û pêşniyazî wî kiribû ku zor bide bo serxwebûnê.

9 Bnr. Şêx Ubeydulahê Nehrî, Tuhfetul Ehbab: Mesnewi Şex Ubeydullah Nehri, ed. Seyid Isalm Duagû (Urmia: Husseini 2000), 107-37.

10 Sabri Ateş, “Empires at the Margins: Toward the History of the Ottoman-Iranian Borderland Peoples, 1843-1881” (PhD dissertation, New York University, 2006), 300.

11 H.b., 297.

12 Wek mînak, di 9ê Gulana 1880ê de, “Civata Mezin (Great House) a Ermenên Axtamarê bi izna Xwedê, pêşwaziya Kaptan Clayton û hevalê me yê xoşewîst konsulê alîkar ê hikumeta xurt a îngilîz li Wanê dikin. Û diyar dike:
baş tê zanîn ku kurdên çavbirçî û barbar ev welat çawa talan kirine û tarûmar kirine û sala çû hêzên mezin yên xiristiyan bo hikumeta tirk pêşniyaz kirin ku peywirdaran bişînin ermenistanê da ku xiristiyanên feqîr û reben ji nav lepên zordarên zalim xilas bikin û rewşa wan a êşdar baştir bikin. (FO 195/1315; dupat lê hatiye zêdekirin)

Di heman demê de, wek ku belgeya jêr destnîşan dike, çendîn hewldanên bo eniyeke yekgirtî li hember dewletên osmanî û qacar hebûn, wek mînak:
Demeke dirêj e, ez bi temamî li dijî fikra tifaqa kurd-ermenan bûm. Li gor min gelek bêwate ye ku di navbera van herdu nijadên bi eşkereyî dijberê hev in hevsengek hebe, lê xuya dike aniha di bin perdeya ticaretê de bi kurdên Dêrsimê re û bi serokeşîrekî xurt li wê herêmê muzakere tên kirin… Ji min re tê gotin ku hin eşirên kurd ên kok-ermen ne tenê amade ne bo alikariya hewldanekê lê amade ne derbasî dînê xiristiyaniyê jî bibin. (FO 195/1316; William Everett Capt, Pûşber 25, 1880, Erzirom, dupat lê hatiye zêdekirin.) A din, ji aliyê herdu civatan gelek hewldan hene ku bi ser aliyê din bikevin. Wek mînak, “Şêx qasid şand ba Ma Şîmon ku jê re bêje tevlî wî bibin li hemberî hukimeta tirk û heman teklîf li serokê ermen ê rûhanî jî kir, û got wê xiristiyanan biparêze. (FO 195/ 1315/ No.23 Siyasî [Nehênî], ji Clayton bo Trotter, Başkale, Tîrmeh 11, 1880, dupat lê hatiye zêdekirin.) Agahîdêrê min dibêje Şêx Ubeydulah pir dixebite ku nifûza xwe zêdetir bike. Xwe bi xiristiyanan şêrîn dike û gelek xiristiyan ji Gewerê koçkirine bo mintiqeya Şêx da ku ji parastina wî îstifade bikin. (FO 195/1315, No. 20, ji Clayton to Trotter, Wan, Gulan 25, 1880, dupat lê hatiye zêdekirin.)

13 Dîplomatekî qacar, di nameyeke farisî bo rojnameya osmanî, Vakitê de (No. 1776, Îlon 28, 1880) de rojnamegerên tirk hişyar dike bo zêde bikaranîna gotina “kurdên biterrî.” Dîplomat destnîşan dike ku bi taybetî piştî 1878 Peymana Berlînê, rojnameyên tirk gelek caran wek “xelkê biterrî”, yanê hov an heywan, qala kurda dikin. Lewma, dîplomat bi henekî dibêje: “Kord Haman beh ke domash nabashad (baştir e ku kurd bêterrî bimînin).”

14 Yektan Türkyılmaz Raffi (Hakob Melik-Hakobyan, 1835-1888) tarîf dike wek yek ji girîngtirîn îdeologên neteweperweriya pan-ermen. Li Salmasê (bakurê rojavayê Îranê) di malbateke îranî-ermen a ji çîna navîn de hat dinyayê. Bi taybetî bala xwe da ermenên li Rojhilata Anatolyayê. Di dawiya salên 1850an de li seranserê wilayetên rojhilatê yên Împeratoriya Osmanî geriya. Di rojnameya rojane ya ermenkî ya navdar Mshak (Tbilisi) de qunciknûs bû. Piranî li ser nasnameya ermen, him honak him ne-honak, dinivîsand. Bnr. Yektan Turkyilmaz, “The Problem of ‘True’ Kurdish Identity in Armenian Nationalist Literature, 1878-1914,” gotara pêşkêşkirî di civîna salane ya the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), Marriott Copley Palace Hotel, Boston, MA, Mijdar 21-24, 2009.

15 H.b.

16 Tercüman-ı Hakikat, No. 677 (Îlon, 14, 1880).

17 FO 195/1316, William Everett Capt, No. 6 C, Erzirom, Pûşber 25, 1880.

18 H.b. Lê çîna sêyem ku ji ermenên gregorî yên bêtir xwedî perwerde pêk tê, mirovên sade an xwedî nifûz ên demeke dirêj e li welêt rûdinin, an mirovên xwedî behre û enerjî yên ji Konstantinopleê hatine taybetmendiyeke wan pir cuda hene. Ji ajoyên welatparêziyê an hewesê xwedî armanceke xurt in ku welatiyên xwe ji zordaran xilas bikin û ji bo bi ser bikevin çi ji destê wan bê wê bikin. Her dem bi Komiteya li Konstantinopleê re di nav têkiliyê de ne ku fermanên wan werdigrin û wan derbasî jêr-komîteyên li herêman dikin. Ew kesên ku li jor wek çîna yekem hat qalkirin wek kerî bi rê ve tên birin, fikrên wan yên welêt temsîl dikin, û ew in ên ku pêwîst e em berê xwe bidinê, fêr bibin bê ka çi diqewime. (dupat lê hatiye zêdekirin)

19 Made 61 a di Peymana Berlînê wisa ye:
Bab-ı Ali bêyî ku dereng bikeve guherîn û reformên, ku li wilayetên ermen lê dijîn pêwîstiyên herêmî îcab dike, bîne cî û ewlehiya wan a hemberî kurd û çerkezan xerantî bike. Bab-ı Ali wê bi awayekî periyodîk agahî bide, hêzên ku wê serperiştiya wan bikin, derbarê pêşgiriyên (tedbîr) bo vê armancê hatine kirin.

20 H.b. ji Cooper bo Layard. No. 1; Edene, Çile 7, 1880.

21 Wek mînak, “ermenên (Great House of) Axtamarayê” dibêjin “hêzên mezin ên xiristiyan pêşniyaz li hukimeta tirk kirine peywirdaran bişîne ermenistanê da ku xelkê feqîr û reben rizgar bikin. (FO 195 /1315; dupat lê hatiye zêdekirin.) Bnr. Tercüman-ı Hakikat, No. 586, Gulan 28, 1880 jî.

22 Brwd. h.b. No. 585-598 (1880). Hejmara 598an ya Tercüman-ı Hakikat du tiştan dihewîne: a) Fermana Abdulhamid a îlankirina guherandina Wezîrîazam Sa’id Paşa, Pûşber 10, 1880; û b) beşa duyem a gotara bi sernavê “Kurdistan an Ermenistan?” ku nivîsa dawîn e ku ji aliyê kurdekî derbarê têkiliyên kurd-ermenan de hatiye nivîsandin û di 1880a de di rojnameyê de hatiye weşandin. Babetên din ên rojnameyê û fermana Abdulhamid îma dikir ku osmanî temînat stendine ku bituniya axa împeratoriyê wê wek xwe bimîne. Ev nîşane bû ku Tercüman-ı Hakikat wê weşandina nivîsên nêz-kurd bisekinîne.

23 Li vir ez fikra Rust di awayekî peywendeke cuda de bi kar tînim. Bnr. Joshua Rust, John Searle and the Construction of Social Reality, Continuum studies in American philosophy (London: New York: Continuum, 2006), 83.

24 Brwd. Tercüman–ı Hakikat, taybetî No. 586-598, 1880.

25 Bnr. h.b.

26 Wek mînak, Tercüman-ı Hakikat destûr dide kurd hin nivîsan biweşînin, Cerîde-i Havâdis, di hejmara xwe ya. 4328 de, 1880, hê jî wek kurdên biterrî qala kurdan dike. Bnr. Tercüman-ı Hakikat, No. 596, Tîrmeh 8, 1880 jî.

27 Tê derxistin ku ev rojnameyeke nêz-ermen bû.

28 Di deqa resen de, “piştgirên wan” e lê ji bo zelaltir be, min nav, kurd, bi kar anî, ji ber ku zêdebûna cînavkan dikare hevokê tevlîhev bike.

29 Tercüman-ı Hakikat, No. 590, Pûşber 1, 1980. (dupat hatiye lêzêdekirin)

30 Karen Horney, Our Inner Conflicts: A Constructive Theory of Neurosis (New York: W.W. Norton, 1945).

31 Brwd. Nehrî, Tuhfetul Ehbab: Mesnewi Şeyx Ubeydullah Nehri. Bnr. FO 195/1315; No. 37, ji Trotter bo Groschen, Van, Tabax 20, 1880 jî, tê de tê diyarkirin ku ji ber “bi giştî birêvebirina xirab û bêedaletiyê, misilmanên ku bi van civatan re elaqeya wan tune ne jî bi dengekî bilind çêrî rayedarên hikumetê dikin… wek xiristiyanan.”

32 Divê neyê jibîrkirin ku dewleta osmanî di kişifkirina civatekê li hemberî yeka din de çalak bû, bi taybetî kurd beramberî ermenan. Dewleta osmanî hewl dida bi tehrîkkirina kurdan hemberî wan serî bi neteweperweriya ermen derxe û bicîanîna Madeya 61ê ya Peymana Berlînê asteng bike. Dîsa li ser heman stratejiyê parçe bike û bi rê ve bibe, dewleta osmanî hewl dida ermen li hember kurdan kiş bike, taybetî dema hilatina Şêx Ubeydulah dît û ermenên herêmê ber bi wî ve çûn. Wek mînak, Clayton ji Trotter re dinivîsîne ku Waliyê Wanê ji wî re gotiye Şêx “plana wî qelihandina xiristiyanan e.” A din, dibêje rayedarên tirk misyonerên biyanî kirê kirine ku ermenan li hemberî kurdan sor bikin (dupat hatiye lê zêdekirin. FO 195/1315, No. 46, ji Clayton bo Trotter, Van, Mijdar 27, 1880.)

33 Tercüman-ı Hakikat, No: 586, Gulan 28, 1980. Ligel vê, Clayton ji Trotter re dinivîsîne: Divê ez bêjim ku di nav misilmanan de hesteke pir xurt heye derbarê gotegotên li hewa difirin ku Ewropa niyet dike ermenîstaneke serbixwe ava bike. Ji min dipirsin ka ev agahî rast e an na, û ev îdia ji carekê zêdetir min ji misilmanan bihîstiye, ku avakirina dewleteke wisa wê gelekî li dijî berjewendiyên îngilîzan be, ji ber ku wê bi temamî di bin kontrola Rusyayê de be. Digel ku welat di rewşeke nîgeran de ye, ermen û nestûrî behsa serxwebûnê dikirin, û misilman jî hêrs bûbûn. Min bihîst, lê nikarim rastbûna gotinê piştrast bikim, misilmanên Wanê xeber ji Şêx Ubeydulah re şandine û pirsîne gelo divê ew çi bikin li hemberî îdiayên ermenan, û soz dane ew çi ferman bike da ku wê îtaat bikin. (dupat hatiye lê zêdekirin. FO 195/1315, No. 25, Wan, Tabax, 10, 1880.)

34 Tercüman-ı Hakikat, No. 586, Gulan 28, 1980.

35 H.b.

36 H.b. No. 592, Pûşber 2, 1880.

37 Brwd. H.b. No. 585-598, 1880.

38 Bnr. BOA, Dosya No. 121; Gömlek No. 7231; Fon Kodu İ.ŞD; Tarih 20/L /1298 (Hicrî) [1881].

39 Tercüman-ı Hakikat, No: 589, Gulan 31, 1880.

40 H.b.

41 H.b.

42 H.b.

43 Nameyeke din ku ji aliyê kurdekî hatibû nivîsandin û rojnameya Tercüman-ı Hakikatê de hatibû weşandin, muameleya osmaniyan bo kurdan ronî dike. Nivîskarê nameyê spasiya rojnameyê dike, dibêje ji ber ku ev sî salên di jiyana wî de dibîne cara yekem rojnameyeke osmanî kurdan diparêze (No, 597, Pûşber 9, 1880). Lê, wek ku berê hatibû destnîşankirin, ev parastin bi tayinkirina Wezirîazamê nû, Muhammed Kadri Paşa ji nişka ve bi dawî dibe. Rawestandina nivîsên nêz-kurd nîşaneyeke din e ku dewleta osmanî hatibû temînkirin ku wê bituniya axa wê wek xwe bimîne. Abdulhamid di fermaneke xwe de ev geşedanên nû îma kiribû. Di stuna editorê Tercüman-ı Hakikatê de, fermana Siltên wek nîşaneyeke zelal e ku –ligel reformên dewam dikin- “bituniya adil” a dewletê wê bê parastin û Kurdistan, niha çawa be, wê wek parçeyeke necudabar a Împeratoriyê bimîne. Bnr. Tercüman-ı Hakikat, No. 600, June 12, 1880.

44 H.b. (No. 586, Gulan 27 1880).

45 H.b. (vadi zalaletda kalmış).

46 H.b. (No: 592, Tîrmeh 5, 1880).

47 H.b.

48 H.b.

49 Wodak û yên din, The Discursive Construction of National Identity, 4.

50 Tercüman-ı Hakikat, No. 592, Tîrmeh 5, 1880.

51 Nql. di Wodak û yên din, The Discursive Construction of National Identity, 19.

52 Beriya serdema modern, bi navê Iraq du herêm hebûn; ji piraniya Iraqa îro wek Iraqa ereb û hin herêmên navîn li Îrana îro wek Iraqa ecem dihat gotin.

53 Tercüman-ı Hakikat, No. 592, Tîrmeh 5, 1880.

54 Wodak û yên din, The Discursive Construction of National Identity, 24.

55 Seyla Benhabib di h.b. de neqil dike, 2-3.

56 Tercüman-ı Hakikat, No. 592, Tîrmeh 5, 1880.

57 H.b. No. 595, Tîrmeh, 7 1880.

58 Dupat hatiye lêzedekirin.

59 Li vir ez dîsa gotina Wodak û yên din bi kar anîne deyn dikim. The Discursive Construction of National Identity, 187.

60 Ji bo bêtir agahî li ser girîngiya jibîrkirina neteweperest, bnr. Ernest Renan, “What Is Nation?” di nav Nation and Narration, ed. Homi K. Bhabha (London: New York: Routledge, 1990).

61 Hin ji van têgehan ji nîqaşa li ser nêrîna Leszek Kolakowski ya derbarê sazkirina nasnameya neteweyî û bîra civakî hatiye wergirtin, di h.b., 24-28.

62 62 (kendi qavmiyetleriniŋ mevqi‘ini ta‘rif etmek).

63 Tercüman-ı Hakikat, No. 595, Tîrmeh, 7 1880.

64 H.b.

65 H.b. No: 591, Tîrmeh 2, 1880.

66 Tercüman-ı Hakikat, No. 595, Tîrmeh, 7 1880.

67 H.b. No. 595, Tîrmeh 7, 1880.

68 Jîn, No. 3, 1918, wek şîroveya di Martin Strohmeier, Crucial Images in the Presentation of a Kurdish National Identity: Heroes and Patriots, Traitors and Foes, Social, Economic, and Political Studies of the Middle East and Asia (Leiden: Boston: Brill, 2003), 26.

69 Tercüman-ı Hakikat, No. 591, Pûşber 2, 1880.

Kurd û Çêkirina “Xwetiyên Neteweyî”

Vejandina Zimanê Îbranî

Nûrealîzma Îtalî, Yilmaz Guney û Hêvî

Tehlîlek di Peywenda Teorîya Monomîtê de li ser Çîroka “Meymûn Xanim û Mîrze Memûd”

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Kurd û Çêkirina “Xwetiyên Neteweyî”

Related Posts

Vejandina Zimanê Îbranî

Nûrealîzma Îtalî, Yilmaz Guney û Hêvî

Tehlîlek di Peywenda Teorîya Monomîtê de li ser Çîroka “Meymûn Xanim û Mîrze Memûd”

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply