Astarjian: Yes We Can! (Part I)

Some dream of it, many don’t. When contemplated, many say it is impossible. When brought to focus, they give you a hundred reasons as to why it is a losing proposition. The faint hearted freeze at the thought. The ones who have guts to face the issue don’t have the leadership. Yet, the leadership of the major political parties do not even have it on their radar screen. Or, if they do, they tremble before its challenges. The issue on their political platform, like Maurice Ravel’s “Bolero,” is repetitious, rhetorical, and aimless. Yet, they manipulate the emotions of their audiences by uttering the cliché rhetoric “Miatsial Azad Angakh Hayastan” (United, Free, Sovereign Armenia). This topic generates all that is mentioned above, and it is the height of hypocrisy. People do not tolerate it anymore; the political parties will lose whatever credibility they have left (which is less than that of the U.S. Congress) and the legitimacy of their leadership will further deteriorate to incredulity. Miatsial Azad Angakh Hayastan!

The concept is right, the cause is legitimate and just, the task is difficult, and to some who are oblivious to the vagaries of the political situation, it is unrealistic at best. These are people who, given a successful project, will give you 10 reasons why it will not succeed.

The situation of all these factions is fully understandable. The Armenian Diaspora, though fully recovered physically, is severely traumatized psychologically to a degree that mere mention of Turkey generates hatred, disgust, and anger. Even the third-generation Diasporan Armenian talks about their ancestral home in “Turkish Armenia” and recounts the stories of horror, death, and destruction that the Turks—and some Kurds, mostly of the Zaza tribe—have inflicted upon its innocent, most valuable citizens, the Armenians, the Assyrians, and of late the Kurds.

To these people, Turkey is a giant; it is a member of NATO, it is indispensable in implementing the policies of the United States in the region, it is an ally of Israel, and it is a counterbalance to Iran and can check Syria anytime. It has a unique strategic land mass, which enables it to control the Black Sea despite the international treaties regulating naval passage. For all these reasons and more Turkey is untouchable.

This is how Turkey looks from the outside What is inside is another matter. Kemal Ataturk’s pronouncement of Turkey being “independent, secular, and democratic” has completely failed. Turkey is neither of those; Turkey may be relatively independent, but is neither secular nor democratic. One man-one vote does not make democracy, and I am not even talking about Jeffersonian democracy. Democracy is a way of life, which Turkey does not have, makes no effort to achieve, and cannot achieve even if its rulers desired it (though they don’t).

Claimed secularism is contrary to the realities of Turkish society, which is Islamist—it is Islamist, it is Islamist—despite Turkish official denial. And the dominant sect is the Naqshbandi branch of Islam, which is now in power. This sect has many branches; the Golden Chain Naqshbandi-Haqqani, globally headed by Sheikh Nazim al-Qubrisi of Cyprus, is the most influential in Turkey. To this sect belong Necmettin Erbakan (the mid 1990’s Turkish prime minister who was tried and convicted for embezzlement, stashing 140 kilos of gold, and later pardoned by his ally, President Abdullah Gul), Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Turkey’s current prime minister), and Abdullah Gul (Turkey’s president).

Turkey’s people elected this clique, admittedly in a democratic way. So, if Turkey is secular, how did these Naqshbandi Islamists come to power?

The year was 1993. In a rally in Berlin, sheikh Nazim al-Qubaisi was introduced as the lead speaker. A long, white-bearded, turbaned man with bulging eyes ascended on the podium acknowledging the thunderous applause of the audience by glorifying God: “Allaahu Ekber!” “Allaahu Ekber” echoed through the huge stadium and by its pronouncement, you could tell they were not Arabs. Al-Qubaisi was the epitome of the sheikhs and mullahs of Ottoman-era Turkey who preached in mosques during the Friday prayers, calling for the annihilation of the infidel Armenians and Assyrians, and asserting the supremacy of Islam as being the Deen-ul-Haqq (the legitimate religion) and the khalif, the Khalif of All Muslims.

His speech spewed rhetorical flames, asking the audience to win the battle against the infidels. To me he looked and behaved like the Ottoman general who rallied his troops at the gates of Vienna, before being soundly defeated.

In the audience, seated in the front row, were none other than Erbakan, Erdogan, and Gul—the top brass of Turkey.

This situation did not sit well with the Kemalists, especially the military hierarchy. Their prophet is Kemal Ataturk whose orientation was secularism, European style. To achieve that he beheaded hundreds of sheikhs and mullahs, like Sheikh Qubrusi including Kurds. The mere existence and strong presence of the Islamist government is a prime indication of the death of Kemalism. For some wishful thinkers, it is morbidly wounded, but not quite dead yet; for them, Ataturk remains their prophet. Yet, for the Islamists the real prophet is Mohammed, and rightfully so.

There exists bitter enmity between the army—the guardian of the Ataturk doctrine—and the Islamist government, which is the true representative of the people. The army, the guardian of the faith, has ruled Turkey with an iron fist since the inception of the “Secular Republic.” They continue to muzzle free speech, trying and convicting hundreds of journalists, including our Hrant Dink. Criticism of the government is construed as “insulting Turkishness” and requires punishment. This is none other than Pavlovian control of the mind.

Turkish society is thus split. Turkey’s society is even more fragmented. Kurds and their non-Kurdish sympathizers are on one side, and the establishment is on the other.

This clash of faith and philosophy is Turkey’s main dilemma, and might be cause for its transformation to another entity, especially when the Kurdish cause enters into the equation. Could the condition be changed?

This is Turkey, to which the corrupt Armenian government is cow-towing, trashing the nation’s interests. See you next week!

Dr. Henry Astarjian

Dr. Henry Astarjian

Dr. Henry Astarjian was born in Kirkuk, Iraq. In 1958, he graduated from the Royal College of Medicine and went on to serve as an army medical officer in Iraqi Kurdistan. He continued his medical education in Scotland and England. In 1966, he emigrated to the U.S. In 1992, he served as a New Hampshire delegate to the Republication National Convention in Houston, Texas. For three years Astarjian addressed the Kurdish Parliament in Exile in Brussels, defending Armenian rights to Western Armenia. For three consecutive years, he addressed the American Kurds in California and Maryland. He is the author of The Struggle for Kirkuk, published by Preager and Preager International Securities.
Dr. Henry Astarjian

Latest posts by Dr. Henry Astarjian (see all)

11 Comments

  1. Perhaps it’s a typo or other oversight, but there’s an apparent error here: “Even the third-generation Diasporan Armenian talks about their ancestral home in ‘Turkish Armenia’ and recants [should be ‘recounts’] the stories of horror, death, and destruction that the Turks—and some Kurds, mostly of the Zaza tribe—have inflicted…”
    For one, the Zaza are not a tribe; rather, they are speakers of the Zaza language. Second, Zaza speakers are concentrated around Dersim (The Turks now call it Tunceli), and the Zaza-speaking Kurds of Dersim actually HELPED the Armenians escape the genocide being perpetrated against them.
    As Garo Sasouni writes in his book, The Kurdish National Movement and Armeno-Kurdish Relations (with which Dr. Astarjian is closely familiar): “Some ashirets [clans/tribes] not only did not participate in the massacres but, on the contrary, granted shelter to and defended the Armenian masses that found refuge with them. For example: Dersim became one of the centers for the Armenians’ salvation, and thanks to it nearly 20,000 Armenians were saved via the Erznga and Erzrum line.”
    Sasouni also writes: “A surprising fact is that in the 1915 Genocide a greater role was played by the ‘raya’ [serf] Kurds than by the ashirets. The [Turkish] government, suspicious of the ashirets, pushed the raya Kurds to the forefront, armed them, and gave them broad freedoms as a temporary gendarmerie force to massacre the Armenians and enrich themselves with the [Armenians’] abandoned goods…. The Kurdish raya…were extremely cruel and were even successful in turning in to the government those Armenians who had found refuge among the ashirets.”
    To this day, there are “hidden Armenians” among the Dersim Kurds (see here, for example: http://www.noravank.am/en/?page=theme&thid=1&nid=1897), and the Turkish military has often singled out Dersim/Tunceli in recent decades with severe “counter-insurgency” operations, burning down and otherwise wiping out entire populated areas. Interestingly, the Turkish military often refer to those Kurds as “Armenians.”

  2. The Zaza’s are neither a tribe of Kurds nor are they Kurds. They are Zaza an Iranic people. The northern Zaza within the watershed of the Euphrates are Alevi and helped Armenians during the genocide. These Alevi Zaza’s experienced genocide in 1908 and 1937. Within the watershed of the Tigris, the Zaza are Sunni and they committed genocide against Armenians, Assyrians and Yezidis.

    As for the term “Turkish Armenia” this is an Archaic term since Armenians and Armenian civilization no longer exist there. It is “Turkish occupied Armenia”.

  3. No need to go to jahannam, they have made one in Asia Minor by the time they got there, from central Asia, and it is very sad that by now they have not realized, no mater how many millions of innocents so far they have killed, or caused to be killed, and on the top of  all what they have done, it looks like they still have the appetites, to open the borders and go to Armenia and Artsakh, and finish their predecessors unfinished job of exterminating the rest of the Armenians, may Holy Trinity save us from that day, not Pr. S. Sarkisyan and his weak government.  

  4. I have known Sheikh Nazim Adil for forty years and have never known him to suggest violence. He is very much a person of prayer and self-improvement, and of course praise for our creator.
    I think you have really exaggerated him as the fiery-eyed Moslem   cleric. Those of us that know him, know he’s a wonderful, caring person who cares about all of mankind. I have only heard him say we must kill our egos.
    Maybe you should kill your ego also.

  5. According to Garegin Amatuni (Dareru untatskin … Krtatsats Hayer) Dersim Armenians who had become Kurds belonged to the Alevi sect as was the surrounding Kurdish population. And according to Raffi, in his commentary “Hayere Kabuli mej,” the Dersim  Armenians gradually assimilated among the Kurds after remaining a long time without priests. Perhaps it was the memory of their ancestry that prompted the Dersim Kurds to help Armenian victims of the Genocide.

  6. To Virginia Smith

    I assume you are a follower of Naqshbandi lineage of Sufi tradition, and it is true that Sufism in general promotes peace and love towards all human beings.  Also it is true that Sufis practice  their Zikr and all their fancy rituals to cleanse their souls and transcend their egos (lesser Jihad), still their main spiritual reference is their holly book Quran which validates the real Jihad against infidels.
      When the issue arises and its about infidels like us they can easily turn into full blown Jihadists.  Most of the Jihadist operations in Central Asia are conducted by Sufi sects, and lets not forget Chemical Ali, he was a devout practitioner of Kaznazan lineage of Sufism.

  7. I wish I self-disciplined enough to be a  follower of the Naqshbandi tradition as I know it, but I am just a weak person.
    I abhore violence after living in Beirut for 7 years, the last two during the beginning of the war.
    Before that, I met many Armenians and was told what happened in 1915. The scars run very deep, understandably.
    But when I was in Beirut I also met Sheikh azim Al Qubrisi, and his kindness to me, an infidel American, made me see a different side of Islam. I never knew that the prophet told his people not to attack either Christians or Jews. I was also surprised to see less antisematism in Beirut than I saw in my own country at that time.
    Of course, the things that happen in the name of religion are seldom actually part of the religion. It has to do with posessions and power and land; all the things we will not be taking with us when we leave this earth.
    When we can remove the attachment of the emotion invested in religion from mans’ basic instinct to own things and people, we will have world peace.
    Generating hatred for people who are peace-makers like Sheikh Nazim on the suspicion that he must harbor some hidden animosity for Armenians is ludicrous.  Yes, he is in love with prophet Mohamad.  No, he hasn’t got the time or inclination to be thinking of doing you harm. I’m sorry you had the experience of being hurt by people who dressed the same way Sheikh Nazim does. Many people do things in the name of Islam that are not Islam. I know all too well.
    I hope this brings some peace to you.

  8. Although no religions live up to the hype they preach (peace, love, etc) because they are man-made institutions, islam was founded on war and conquest. Think not? Try reading about the history behind Mohammed. He and his sect rode out of the Hejaz on a spree of killing, rape, and pillage for which the region has never recovered.

  9. Vatche thanks for posting the link. Its enlightening to see Mawlana Qubrisi showing his true Islamic feelings…  and did he say bringing the infidels down to their knees, or restablishing the last Islamic Ottoman Khalife system?   So much for unconditional LOVE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*