37th anniversary of Qasimlo’s assassination revives debate over Kurdish rights in Iran

Kurds in Eastern Kurdistan (northwestern Iran) are commemorating the 37th anniversary, which falls on July 13, of the assassination of Dr. Abdul Rahman Qasimlo, the secretary-general of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KDPI), describing it as a political milestone that goes beyond remembering a historical figure.

Many Kurdish politicians and intellectuals believe that the ideas advocated by Qasimlo more than three decades ago, particularly democracy, decentralization, dialogue, and constitutional recognition of national rights, continue to form the foundation of Kurdish demands today.

Abdul Rahman Qasimlo was born in 1930 in Urmia. He became involved in political activism during his youth before completing his studies in Europe and earning a doctorate in economics and political science.

Alongside his academic career, he emerged as one of the most prominent leaders of the Kurdish political movement in Iran. He was elected secretary-general of the KDPI of Iran in 1972, a position he held until his assassination in 1989.

Following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Qasimlo attempted to open dialogue with the new authorities to reach a political solution that would guarantee Kurdish national rights within a democratic Iran. At the same time, he rejected separatist projects, emphasizing that his demand was for democratic governance that would allow Kurds to manage their affairs within the framework of the Iranian state.

However, those efforts did not reach the outcome he had hoped for. On July 13, 1989, Qasimlo was assassinated in the Austrian capital Vienna while attending a negotiation meeting with representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the time, alongside Abdullah Ghaderi-Azar and Fadel Rasoul.

The assassination is considered one of the most prominent attacks targeting Kurdish leaders outside Iran and continues to be referenced in Kurdish political literature as an example of the failure of dialogue between the Kurdish movement and the Iranian state.

Over the following decades, Qasimlo became one of the most prominent political symbols among Kurds in Eastern Kurdistan. Kurdish parties and institutions commemorate his legacy annually, portraying him as one of the first leaders to advance a political project combining national struggle with democratic activism, based on dialogue and recognition of ethnic diversity within Iran.

This year’s anniversary carries particular significance amid the changes Iran has witnessed in recent months. The war has increased security tensions, while Tehran has intensified operations against the headquarters and members of Iranian Kurdish opposition parties in border areas with Southern Kurdistan.

At the same time, a group of Iranian Kurdish parties announced the formation of a joint political framework aimed at unifying their positions toward developments in the country and calling for a democratic system that recognizes the rights of Kurds and other national groups.

The parties said the initiative represents an attempt to overcome historical divisions among Kurdish opposition groups, despite continued differences over the desired form of the political system.

Observers say the current situation has brought many of the ideas promoted by Qasimlo back to the forefront, particularly the unification of Kurdish forces, organized political action, and the pursuit of a democratic solution to the Kurdish issue. Others, however, point out that current circumstances differ significantly from those of the 1980s, both in terms of the balance of power inside Iran and the nature of the regional environment.

Within Kurdish political circles, debate has resurfaced over whether current developments could open the door to a new form of autonomous administration or decentralization in Eastern Kurdistan. However, according to most analyses, this possibility remains dependent on the trajectory of developments inside Iran itself and the nature of any future political system that may emerge from potential change, rather than military conditions alone.

Previous experiences also indicate that achieving sustainable political gains requires internal consensus and a constitutional framework, not merely shifts in the balance of power. 

A-H

ANHA