نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Ethnicity and ethnic nationalism, particularly in their politicized forms, have long been central concerns for scholars in the humanities. One significant case is the issue of the Kurds. Although the Kurdish people have a deep-rooted and ancient heritage in the region, political discourse surrounding them is a relatively recent phenomenon. The origins of the Kurdish issue in Iran can be traced back to the rise of the Safavid dynasty. The Iranian shift toward Shi'ism, along with the Sunni orientation of the Kurds and their affinity for the Sunni Ottoman Empire, played a significant role in this divergence. This dynamic contributed to the detachment of a substantial portion of Kurdistan from Iran. A significant development followed the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the emergence of modern states such as Turkey, Iraq, and Syria, which led to the division of the Ottoman-controlled Kurdish regions among these countries. These developments led to diverse and contrasting experiences in the trajectory of Kurdish ethnonationalism. The central governments of each of these states adopted different approaches to dealing with Kurdish ethnic groups and Kurdish identity. Furthermore, the degree of alienation or cooperation of Kurdish populations with central governments significantly influenced the successes or setbacks of Kurdish movements. Following the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the signing of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Kurds, historically, geographically, and culturally a part of Iranian civilization or a continuation of it, were divided among Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. The governments of these three countries faced considerable challenges in managing such ethnic diversity, which eventually took on regional dimensions. The emergence of Turkish nationalist discourse in the early 1900s marked the beginning of a new era in Turkey, one rooted in an exclusive ethnic Turkish identity. During this period (1915–1930), Kurdish uprisings in Turkey largely maintained a tribal rather than an explicitly ethnic or identity-based character. After World War I, the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and European powers imposed the Treaty of Sèvres near Paris. This treaty granted the Kurds the right to autonomy and proposed the establishment of an Armenian state in the east. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk convinced the Kurds to join the independence wars against the occupying forces in return for promises of autonomy. However, following the War of Independence, the Treaty of Lausanne in 1922 formally delineated the modern borders of Turkey. One key clause in the Lausanne Treaty concerned minorities in Turkey. Turkish diplomats subtly redefined the term "minority" to refer only to religious minorities, thereby avoiding any obligations regarding ethnic minorities, particularly the Kurds, in the eyes of the international community. Despite this, Turkey did not honor even the provisions related to Christian minorities, and Kurdish rights, as an independent and marginalized ethnic group, were entirely ignored. Not only were their claims to autonomy dismissed, but even their ethnic identity and citizenship status were denied. In Atatürk’s new nation-building project, all citizens of Turkey were defined as being of Turkish race, lineage, and language. The Kurdish nationalist movement first emerged in the late 19th century with Sheikh Ubeydullah’s revolt against the Ottoman system in 1880, and the pan-Kurdish ideology subsequently gained traction in reaction to the disregard of the Treaty of Sèvres. In contrast, the nature of the historical, cultural, and political bonds between Kurds and Iran has been markedly different. Numerous commonalities exist: from shared myths like Kaveh the Blacksmith, Rostam and Sohrab, to the celebration of Nowruz, the Shi’a faith among Shi’a Kurds, a long history of coexistence, and even linguistic ties between Kurdish and Persian. The name 'Kurd' has long been associated with Iranian identity, and Kurdistan is traditionally seen as a region of Iran. . Thus, how a state treats its ethnic groups is of great significance. This article, therefore, focuses on examining the approaches of the Iranian and Turkish governments toward the Kurdish population.
Methodology
The present research is part of a series of applied studies and follows a descriptive-analytical and exploratory approach. This study aims to describe the current realities and explain the underlying reasons and dimensions of how and why the issue has evolved into its present form. Data collection was conducted through library research, including the review and extraction of information from books, scholarly articles, theses, and searches on reputable academic websites. The data analysis method employed is qualitative content analysis.
Results and Discussion
The findings of this study reveal significant differences in the approaches adopted by the Iranian and Turkish governments toward the Kurdish issue. While both states have encountered the challenges of ethnic diversity during their processes of modernization and nation-building, their political strategies have been fundamentally different.
Turkey has historically pursued an assimilationist policy aimed at suppressing Kurdish ethnic identity, perceiving any form of ethnic expression as a threat to national unity and territorial integrity. This securitized approach,manifested in the denial of Kurdish identity, the prohibition of the Kurdish language
in public domains, forced population relocations, and military suppression, has intensified ethnic alienation and led to sustained insurgency and instability in Kurdish regions. Furthermore, Turkey’s military incursions into Kurdish-populated areas in northern Iraq and Syria reflect a continuation of its hardline stance and contribute to regional tensions.
In contrast, Iran’s approach, although not without limitations, has emphasized a model of “unity in diversity.” Kurds in Iran have historically been considered an integral part of the broader Iranian identity, sharing deep cultural, linguistic, and religious ties with other Iranian groups. While Kurdish regions in Iran face economic underdevelopment and political underrepresentation, the state has generally avoided the outright denial of Kurdish identity. Instead, Iran has maintained a symbolic inclusivity, promoting shared national myths, values, and collective memory that include the Kurds.
This comparative analysis suggests that policies based on ethnic exclusion and repression, as seen in Turkey, are more likely to exacerbate ethnic conflict and fragmentation. On the other hand, inclusive and culturally integrative approaches, even if imperfect, such as those practiced by Iran, tend to mitigate ethnic tensions and foster a sense of national belonging. The role of regional geopolitics, particularly Iran’s engagement with the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government and Turkey’s militarized regional strategy, adds to the complexity of the Kurdish issue at both domestic and international dimensions.
Conclusion
This research concludes that the divergent strategies employed by Iran and Turkey in addressing their Kurdish populations have led to markedly different outcomes in social cohesion and national stability. Turkey’s policy of forced assimilation and securitization has not only failed to integrate the Kurds but has also deepened ethnic divisions and perpetuated cycles of resistance and repression. The reliance on military solutions and denial of ethnic identity has proven counterproductive to national unity.
On the other hand, Iran’s approach, although constrained by structural and political challenges, demonstrates the relative effectiveness of symbolic inclusion and cultural accommodation. Recognizing Kurdish cultural and historical contributions to Iranian identity has helped maintain a degree of ethnic integration, despite economic disparities and regional grievances.
Ultimately, the study underscores the importance of inclusive ethnic policies and the recognition of diversity as a national asset rather than a threat. Sustainable national unity, particularly in multiethnic societies, depends on equitable development, meaningful political participation, and the protection of cultural rights. Future policies in both countries would benefit from shifting away from ethnic marginalization and toward participatory governance and interethnic dialogue.
کلیدواژهها English
