In recent weeks, Agos published an important three-part series by Zakarya Mildanoğlu on Kurdish-Armenian relations in the context of the early twentieth century with direct references to written sources of the period. We learn from Mildanoğlu that more installments are forthcoming. Although this is a very important subject, it has remained in the shadow of debates over genocide, particularly in popular discourse, where it has largely been discussed on the basis of the agency of Kurds in the Armenian Genocide. Yet Armenian-Kurdish relations are a multifaceted subject that cannot be confined to the genocide and that, naturally, stretches back much further in time.
Fortunately, we are in a better position in academic domain than we are in popular discourse. Although there is still a long way to go and many questions that need to be explored, there are academic studies, or at least works that follow a certain methodology and discipline, that can help us in exploring and establishing the outlines of the subject. (I have also tried to make a contribution to the literature by an article, namely “White Man’s Burden” or Victim’s Hope(lessness): Armeno-Kurdish Relations and Mutual Perceptions before the Genocide, in the edited volume titled “Kurds and Yezidis in the Middle East: Shifting Identities, Borders, and the Experiences of Minority Communities”.) What we need is the infusion of academic knowledge to the masses and get more widespread. In this article, as a contribution toward that goal, I will try to outline some of the key aspects of this history. My comments apply generally to the post-Tanzimat period, meaning from mid-19th century to the end of the Ottoman Empire.
The first thing that needs to be underscored is this: Kurdish-Armenian relations are a phenomenon too complex, fluid, multi-actor, and variable across time and space to fit into a simple "friend-foe" dichotomy. Undoubtedly, this history is not a bed of roses; it involves conflict, massacres, and blood, but alongside these, it also contains solidarity, protection and mutual patronage, joint production, and cultural exchange.
Secondly, these relations do not actually fit into the categories of "Kurd" or "Armenian" either; they cannot be discussed or explained solely through these two categories, which are thought to be national. One must also consider the internal divisions, conflicts, and groupings within both societies. For example, tribal divisions among Kurds, the contradictions between the agha-bey (landlord/chief) class and Kurdish peasants or laborers; or when we look at the Armenian side, the oligarchic class known as the amira in the earlier 19th century, Armenian political parties from the second half of the 1880s onward, and the conflicts of the Armenian Church both with certain segments of society and within itself are elements that must be taken into consideration when discussing Armenian-Kurdish relations.
In this respect, different groups, classes, and social strata within Armenian and Kurdish communities established relationships with one another independently of the rest of their respective communities, without necessarily implicating or binding them. Consequently, Indeed, it was not unusual in this history for some Armenians to ally with some Kurds against other Armenians, or for some Kurds to join forces with some Armenians against other Kurds. To be more specific and refer to actual events, this is a history in which a cleric within the Armenian Church might collaborate with local Kurdish authorities to eliminate a rival within the church hierarchy, or Kurdish peasants suffering under the oppression of a Kurdish agha might seek support and solidarity from an Armenian political party.
This situation also serves as a reminder of how we should -or rather should not- approach this subject today. For instance, there is no historical, political, or moral basis for a Kurdish laborer today to embrace and defend the actions of a Kurdish agha from more than a century ago simply on the grounds of Kurdish identity. Nor is there any such basis for an ordinary Armenian today to adopt and defend, on the grounds of Armenian identity, the actions of the Armenian Church as an institution or of any Armenian political party from more than a century ago. What should determine our attitudes and guide our judgements about historical events and figures today is not our Armenian or Kurdish identity, but the contemporary values that prioritize human rights, dignity, freedom, and justice, even if those very priorities and values are now both domestically and internationally under threat.
I cannot even go beyond methodology and start talking about the content. Let’s continue handling this subject.
