|
Many things have been said about
Kirkuk, so I am not going to add more to this
contentious issue, but I will pose the following
thoughts and questions:
Let us assume that Saddam in his drive to reduce
Kurdish population and density in Kurdistan has
moved hundreds of thousands of Kurds to a Shiite
towns and cities.
Now, the wave of the newly arrived deportees; and
not settlers enticed with money, livestock and
property like those found in Kirkuk, has tilted the
balance of the demography and population
distribution in favour of the Kurds.
This has led the indigenous Shiite people to become
a minority within their own original land.
Then as the newly arrived deportees are Sunni by
faith, the town or the city, which always has been
Shiite throughout history, has now a Sunni majority.
Let us also assume that after the downfall of the
Ba’th regime those Sunni Kurds were coming out in
their hundreds of thousands to chant anti-Shiite
slogans and denouncing Shiite parties as well as
threatening any move towards making the town and
city they were planted in part of southern
federation.
The last of these thoughts, which God forbid and
thankfully never materialized, what would the
political movement of Shiite has said and do about
moves by the newly arrived Sunni Kurds to forge
alliances and ties with anti-Shiite elements?
If this scenario was faced by the Shiite political
movement in their sacred heartlands and holy cities,
what they would have said to the Kurdish political
movement at the negotiating table?
Then, what would have been said about the Kurds if
they were to embrace a small anti-Shiite element
which has been vociferous in their enmity to Shiite
and plotting against them with a neighbouring
country?
Before answering this question please put in mind
that Shiite Coalition embraced the Turkoman Front
without a question been asked or conditions being
attached.
If we were to assume that God forbid this has taken
place I am sure that not only the same relentless
campaign to discredit the Kurds would have been
waged, such as the one we are seeing now, but also
it might have, God also forbid, led to many
unfortunate tragedies.
Let us be clear, Kirkuk has always been sacred to
Kurds as Karbala and Najaf to Shiite Muslims and all
other Shiite cities and towns.
So what would have happened if the Kurds insisted on
sticking to the Saddam’s legacy of having Sunni
Kurds in Shiite areas running a mock with the true
inhabitants of the cities and towns?
Why then they seem to agree to what Saddam has
wrought upon parts of Kurdistan and its sacred heart
Kirkuk, and why they unashamedly accept the results
of Arabization?
It seems that one of the advantages of Saddam’s
ethnic cleansing project is too good to let go off,
and that is the Shiite political movement has now a
foothold in rich Kurdish land, thanks to Saddam’s
invitation for people from the south to conquer
other people’s land and property.
It is high time for all Iraqis, politicians,
writers, intellectuals, human right campaigners, or
those who claim to be working for good against evil
to clearly show either they are against Saddam’s
ethnic cleansing project or with it.
And if they are against it they should work with
Kurds to rectify and cleanse the lands and cities of
Kurdistan from its vestiges.
Or thank Saddam for giving them an opportunity to
have a political foothold and say in the future of a
city which they have never had any relation with or
remotely connected with.
There is no two way about this.
Those who write anti-Kurdish rhetoric and fill
air-waves and internet sites with racist articles
about Kurds should make effort to release their
fallen hero, Saddam Husayn, the champion of their
cause, the project of ethnically cleanse Kurds from
Kurdistan.
Articles published here do not necessarily reflect
views of Kurdistan Regional Government.
About this Article:
Source : KRG.org -
Added by KRG.org website member :
Hiwa Afandi
www.krg.org
Top |
® 