|
Beauty without Truth does not move me
29.1.2008
By Azad Tofiq. Translated by Barzan Wahab
|
|
|
|
January 29, 2008
I am embarrassed to speak of the supposed
objectivity of an article whose author holds higher
degrees and is renowned for his published research.
Yet I cannot remain silent concerning an article
written in the name of criticism—and touching on
many sensitive issues within the Kurdish
community—that lacks any sound foundation or
legitimate documentation.
Any text that aims to properly inform its readers
should avoid abuse, defamation, and injustice
towards a nation. Yet the article in question
contains statements such as this one: “if 70% of
them are illiterate, the other 30% are obliged to
behave like illiterate.” Rather than this insult,
the text should contain academic judgments and
rational evaluations. |
Azad Tofiq
|
Now if we look at (Dr.Kamal
Merawdali”s) on Jan-9-2008 entitled (Kurdistan
or Barbaristan) published in
Kurdistan Post, can we say that the article is a
healthy criticism written in an academic way? Does
it avoid any kind of deeply stirred hatred towards
the Kurdish community? Can we say that loyalty and
neutrality define the article? We certainly cannot.
I would like to be clear from the beginning by
saying that
How could a writer have dug his fingers so deeply
into the open wound of a community in only six
paragraphs?! How could his conscience have allowed
him to do such a thing? How could he manage to speak
of the lack of freedom, the slaughtering of women, a
nation’s barbarism,www.ekurd.net
the disappointment of
the youth, a government’s totalitarianism, the
destruction of economic infrastructure, etc…in only
two pages? What motivates a writer to do such a
thing now, when in his youth he was ready to write
400 pages on aesthetics in literature and art? It is
clear that he has written with “the blood of his
heart” in the past, but it is clear that he no
longer writes with it now. Academic objectivity
dominated his older work, but it has been replaced
by a string of insults, which has led to both
political and intellectual mistakes. If the article
did not bear the name of its author, Dr. Kamal
Merawdali, no one would have read it—or at least,
they would not have guessed that it was written by a
professional academic. Rather, they may have guessed
it was written by one well-versed in insults. No one
can guess the hidden motivations for writing the
article—except for its author.
For example, Dr. Kamal’s article defines the Kurdish
authorities as a “wild” and “totalitarian”. First,
the use of the word “wild” could only mean one of
two things: First, it could be an insult to the
‘barbarian’ Kurdish authorities. If this is the
case, we simply have no comment. As the Kurds say:
maly qalb ser basahebyeti (phony goods reflect their
owners). Second, it could be an adjective used to
describe the backwardness and tyranny of a
totalitarian regime. This usage is inappropriate
since it produces an intellectual paradox: it treats
as one historical system what are in fact two
different stages. According to scientific sources,
totalitarianism is a unique system that emerged in
the twentieth century as a form of oppression that
draws upon new technologies and modern bureaucracy.
We can say that totalitarianism did not exist before
the twentieth century. And therefore, we cannot call
the old oppressive regimes ‘totalitarian’—nor can we
describe any truly totalitarian system as ‘wild.’
Totalitarianism cannot be treated as an
all-encompassing system that emerged spontaneously.
Rather, it requires a strong economy and an
efficient, well-armed military. But if there is
still no such thing as military recruitment among
Kurdish authorities in Kurdistan, then where is the
totalitarianism, my dear Doctor?! He can only mean
these things as insults. He pays no heed to
knowledge or understanding. He repeats the same
mistake elsewhere in the article when he speaks of
the ‘thuggery’ of PUK and KDP [which are modern
political parties].
If the Doctor does not intend to insult or humiliate
these two political parties or their members, how
else could he have combined thuggery and systematic
politics? Tell me, does the Doctor not know that
systematicity is the result of organization, the
work of reason, and well-informed planning? Does he
not know that these are the mechanisms of efficient
political parties, and not wild barbarians? A system
is the result of a stage in which modernity is
dominant. Wildness and barbarity belong to the eras
before the invention of writing.
If the Doctor is right, Kurdistan is Barbaristan. In
that case, we don’t know which intellectual sphere
encompasses both “barbarism” and “totalitarianism,”
or “thuggery” and “systematicity.” In light of which
political science does the Doctor explain these
things to us.
In another paragraph, the Doctor says “Tens of
people die on the same streets and roads of death by
car accidents every day. In a school, 67 children
have one Kurdish text book. In another six children
sit on a chair made for three.” The Doctor does not
tell us which survey, scientific research, or civil
group produced this string of numbers. If these
figures are true, then the population of Kurdistan
In fact, there is no school in Kurdistan where there
are not dozens of extra books in storage. would soon
become equal to that of the dinosaurs.
He had determined beforehand not to speak well of
the government, but only to defame the Kurdish
authorities and the Kurdistan Regional Government.
That is why he says that the mafias of the PUK and
KDP intend to destroy the economic infrastructure of
Kurdistan. This is a scientific mistake and another
political paradox. Not only a Doctor, but anyone
competent in the language of politics,www.ekurd.net
ought to have avoided
such a mistake. Does the Doctor not know that if the
economic infrastructure of Kurdistan began to
flourish, it would benefit the supposedly
‘totalitarian regime’ rather than the people? [Why
then would the parties intentionally destroy the
economic infrastructure?] The Doctor says that the
authorities in Kurdistan—or... Sorry,
‘Barbaristan’—are totalitarian and far from any
model of democratic freedom. As we know, monopoly
over markets and economic control is one of the
foundational pillars of totalitarianism. Economic
success strengthens totalitarian control over the
country. How then could one suggest that this
government would be so unreasonable as to destroy
the economic infrastructure?
In another paragraph, the Doctor claims that Iran
bombards villages in Kurdistan, and Turkish war
planes drop napalm at will. He also claims that
Talabani considers Iran the best friend of
Kurdistan, and regards Ordugan as the best democrat
in history.
Here, I apologize to the Doctor for such an
expression, but his ideas sound like they have come
from the mind of one aged less than 20 springs, and
the rhythm of his speech resembles that of the
ideologues of those who still believe that the
workers are the most revolutionary class. They do
not sound like the ideas of an experienced
nationalist. In fact, it does not seem that they
could have come from someone like Merawdali, who was
active in politics for years (at times close to
Marxism), and is a ‘24-carrot’ nationalist today.
Theoretically, he acknowledges the fact that there
is no everlasting friendship in politics, nor an
eternal enemy. Thus we cannot evaluate political
norms mathematically. Nor can we read those beliefs
and positions mechanically since there are dozens of
unknown factors in politics. Ordugan’s party itself
has garnered the most votes in Northern Kurdistan,
and yet the Doctor is crying for the suffering of
the Kurds. It seems that the success of Ordugan’s
party is a result of the adoption of a new policy
[towards Kurds]. If we look objectively at the
position of this party as compared to that of all
previous parties in Turkish politics, we can
consider this a positive change. Furthermore, we do
not know whether the Doctor wants to go above the
King’s head. But this is another problem that we
cannot address here.
Concerning Iran, its government is most closely
connected to Kurdistan. No one can deny its work in
guarding the borders of Kurdistan and providing
security, economic assistance, and health services.
In addition to all of these things, Iran was the
primary route for diplomatic and other visits
abroad. To deny these facts and harm the relations
between the Kurdistan Regional Governmet and Iran
would be costly for Kurdish authorities. We think
that underestimating Iran’s influence in both
regional and international arenas will not only be
unreasonable, but a demonstration of political
ignorance. The Doctor should know political science
long ago abandoned an all-or-nothing approach to
negotiations and practical politics. Contemporary
political science is concerned with governance and
the science of government needs reason, logic, and
ingenuity. It is not concerned with romantic dreams
colored in green or red. None of us should see
himself as a superman, nor should we neglect our
humanitarian influence in the region. For a long
time, history has proven that success in politics is
not obtained by empty slogans.
In this political equation, a figure such as Mam
Jalal is not insignificant, but one bearing
responsibility. He is an international figure and
people pay attention not only to his speeches and
appearances, but also his mood and behavior, and
even his manner of dressing. Friends and enemies
alike closely observe and analyze him. Thus no one
can compare his status as a well-known personality
with the status of those who have no
responsibilities, and whose speech does not even
reach their own families. Finally, I would like to
say that Dr. Kamal should not have been so
pessimistic, looking at beautiful things through
black glasses. Rather, he should call the black
black and the white white.
pukmedia com
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 