Kurdistan: An Interstate Colony
An Interstated colony is talking about Kurd and Kurdistan as a Separate state wrote by smail Beşikçi born in 1939 in İskilip, Turkey is a Turkish scholar. He is a PEN Honorary Member. He has served 17 years in prison on propaganda (trumped up) charges stemming from his writings about the Kurdish population in Turkey.
Beşikçi studied at the Faculty of Political Sciences of Ankara University, and graduated in 1962. After his military duty he became an assistant professor at Atatürk University in Erzurum. He prepared his first anthropological study, an investigation of one of the last nomadic Kurdish tribes, the Alikan, here, which he submitted in 1967 to the Ankara Faculty of Political Sciences.
His second encounter with the Kurds was during his military service when he served in Bitlis and Hakkâri where he first saw the nomadic Alikan tribe pass through Bitlis on their migrations from winter to summer meadows and back.
His book ' Kurdistan an interstate Colony' talked about Kurdistan as a separate state, and translated to English by a Baran.
In his book speak about his just like that he said that "being not even a colony." There are two main groups of colonies in the history of colonialism: full colonies and semi-colonies. But the political status of Kurds is far less than the status of a colony. Kurdistan is neither a full nor a semi-colony. (Of course we have to evaluate KRG separately) Colony has its border. For example, when you say that "Uganda was a colony of Great Britain" or "Angola was a colony of Portugal", you have mentioned with defined borders. In other words, the people living in Uganda were not British, neither was Uganda considered part of Great Britain and there was no attempt to transform the native people into Englishmen.
In 1950s, African countries struggled for national independence and anti-imperialism and they gained the status of being a state in accordance to the borders in 1885. This situation has two exceptions: Eritrea and Sudan. With the establishment of these states, a change was done on the borders of 1885. However, the name of Kurd and Kurdistan have been divided, crumbled and shared by eradicating these names either in tongues or history. Furthermore, another point must be underlined: colonies were not established with the intention of remaining as a colony. In the control of colonial power, such a power will give independence to the dependent colony when it comes to "particular phase", administratively, politically and economically. There was such a understanding of colonialism in 1885 and in 1920s. The properties which are stated here are not valid for Kurdistan. Kurds and Kurdistan do not have a status. There is no border. There is neither the name of Kurd nor the name of Kurdistan officaly. It is wanted for Kurds and Kurdistan to remain in such a situation. That is why Kurdistan is not even a colony. There can be a utility to reexamine these relations. For example, while colonies dependent on Great Britain such as Iraq, Jordan, Palestine or colonies dependent on France such as Syria and Lebanon are established, these imperial powers did not think of an independent Kurdistan, even a colonial Kurdistan. In this period, the foremost global colonial powers in France and Great Britain; with the two rooted countries in Middle East, the successor of Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey and the successor of Iranian Empire, which is new Iran; as four powers together descended on Kurdistan.
Click here to see the Book