Karasu: Democratic integration doesn't mean denying Kurdish identity

During a special program broadcast on Medya Haber TV, Karasu evaluated the “democratic integration” process, warning that the absence of concrete political steps, whether in Turkey or Syria, risks rendering the concepts of integration and dialogue meaningless.

His remarks included the following:

*Misinformation attacks continue against the integration project proposed by leader Abdullah Ocalan. Do the policies of the Turkish state form the basis for these misleading attacks?

Leader Abdullah Ocalan wants to resolve the Kurdish issue on the basis of democracy, and to reach a solution through democratic integration and building a democratic republic. This is his approach. The Kurds have been separated from the Turkish state for 100 years. For 100 years, they have opposed and rejected the policies of the Turkish state, and have been waging a continuous struggle against it. Today, it has become necessary to solve this issue.

How can the problem be solved? We must work to overcome this separation resulting from Kurdish objections. How is that done? To overcome this separation between the Kurdish people and the Turkish state, the existence and freedom of the Kurds must be recognized, their democratic rights must be recognized, and laws and a constitution must be established that guarantee their rights.

This is the meaning of leader Abdullah Ocalan's proposal regarding integration and overcoming this separation. The separation currently exists. Who can say that the Kurds are satisfied with the Turkish state? They are not satisfied. They object, they reject, they see themselves under pressure, and they continue their struggle in the face of a state that does not recognize their existence. Despite all this pressure, this separation continues.

The Kurdish people have not been subjugated by force. The policy of "I will subjugate them and silence them" has not achieved a result. Now, leader Abdullah Ocalan wants to address this separation through democracy and democratic integration. Here, the existence of the Kurds is recognized, their right to continue their language, identity, and culture is recognized, and their self-administration is recognized.

If these things are not recognized, integration cannot be achieved. It is not as some say, that the Kurds will abandon all their demands and fully integrate into the state. That is not the case.

The intended integration is to remove the causes of this separation. The cause of this separation and objection is known to everyone.

We have been saying this for 50 years, every day. From this perspective, there are parties that do not approach the idea of democratic integration, do not take steps in this direction, and are trying to obstruct the process.

And what happens when no steps are taken? Then democratic integration becomes meaningless. Because the integration that we and leader Abdullah Ocalan are talking about is the solution to the Kurdish issue on the basis of democracy.

If that is not achieved, then the discussion of democratic integration will take a negative turn. We consider this stage a stage of struggle. If a result is achieved, then so be it. If no result is achieved, then this struggle will continue with different methods and means.

From this perspective, as I mentioned, the basis of these misleading attacks is the policy of the power and its refusal to take steps. After more than a year and a half without any tangible results, it is natural that misleading attempts appear.

*The other aspect where you discuss the issue of integration is Rojava. Recently, signs have been placed on institutions there under the name of the "Arab Republic," deliberately without mentioning Kurdish, by the interim Syrian government. How do you evaluate this? In such matters, the Turkish state immediately comes to mind. Do you think it has an influence?

The so-called "Arab Republic" appeared on television. Can there be an "Arab Republic"? There are also Kurds, Turkmens, and Druze. This is a clear flaw in mentality. This mindset must change. If there is a basic constitution, even if it is called the "Arab Republic," how will the Kurds live within that Syria?

Let's say education is in Arabic and English. But why only Arabic? Why is Kurdish not present? This is exclusionary thinking, as if it denies the existence of an entire people's language. There are hundreds of thousands of children who have been educated in their mother tongue for 15 years. What will you do? Will you deny their existence?

Then they say: "We do not accept mother tongue education." Can this be logical? This is a denialist mentality.

Who would accept this? It means: "I alone will be the center of power." Then the problem is not solved, and no integration is achieved there. This is an "Arab Republic," as if everyone must become Arabs.

This is exactly the policy of the Turkish state in the last century. It was always like this. It's as if they are imitating it now. But was the problem solved there?

The Turkish state applied pressure for decades. Was the issue solved? What the Turkish state could not achieve, do you think you can achieve it? With what kind of logic?!

With this mentality, the regime in Syria (the interim government) will not get anywhere. The Kurds will not accept that. If they were to accept it, it would be as if they accept non-existence and the denial of their existence. Can they accept that? They have given tens of thousands of martyrs.

Therefore, the people of Rojava and the Kurds there will not accept it. Most Arabs also do not accept this.

Arabs and Kurds have lived together as brothers for 15 years. Were Arabs excluded from schools? Everyone was learning in their own language. Were Arabs excluded from the autonomous administration? No.

But now something is being presented from outside, as if it's a mindset alien to reality. In such a situation, all Kurds must stand against it and rise up. If their language, culture, and identity are targeted, then everyone from 7 to 70 years old must stand up: women, children, the elderly, everyone. What will they do?

The same thing is happening in North Kurdistan (Turkish Kurdistan), in Diyadin. I heard that the Mufti of Van issued a fatwa, saying that the sermon (khutbah) must be in Turkish. He added: even if no one understands Turkish, the sermon must be in Turkish.

Is this reactionary and extremist to this degree?! What can you say? Is there greater hostility to the Kurds and their language than this? He says: "Even if no one understands Turkish, the sermon will be in Turkish." In reality, half of the society there does not understand Turkish. So what will happen? How can such words be issued? What does the Minister of Interior say about this? What does the Presidency of Religious Affairs in Turkey say about this? And what do the Kurds say? This is important.

The Kurds must see this. The religious Kurds must see this. Even the Kurds who voted for the AK Party must see this. There are hundreds of thousands, thousands of people who do not understand Turkish. So what will happen? The truth is that the meaning of this fatwa is: "The sermon must not be in Kurdish." That is its essence.

Because there are thousands who do not understand Turkish, and at a time when the solution of the Kurdish issue is being discussed, issuing such fatwas is a shameful matter.

Imposing language in religion is in itself a tragic situation.

This is not found in religion. In Islam, there is nothing like this. This is contrary to the Islamic religion. This is not being done in the name of religion, but in the name of chauvinism and hostility toward Kurds. No one can speak in the name of religion to justify this.

Since it was said in the name of religion, this must not be allowed to pass within religious circles any longer. No imam or clergyman should look upon such a matter with approval or acceptance. Instead, they should say: "Who are you to deliver a sermon in this way? You are turning our religion into this. Is our religion like this?" From here, we must also understand the level of the anti-Kurdish mentality and the extent of the hostility directed against them.

A-H 

ANHA