Kurdish Nationalism: 1830-1930
Kurdish national movements from the 19th century through the 1930s.
Meanwhile, another force was fermenting in the East. This was the Shiite state of Shah Ismail in Persia (Iran). This Safavid state was in turn interested in Eastern Anatolia and the Caucasian provinces. It also tried to bring them under its rule.
The Ottomans expanded rapidly. Muslim and Christian principalities of the “federation” fell under Ottoman rule. Safavid Iran also sent its armies there. This was a dangerous game, especially because the two rivals fanned the centuries old Sunni vs. Shiite enmity of Islam.
War was inevitable. Sultan Selim’s armies crushed the forces of Shah Ismail. In 1514 the Sultan placed Armenian and Kurdistan under Ottoman rule.
By the religious principles of Islam, Christians were rendered second degree citizens entitled to pay costly taxes to their Muslim rulers. Selim burdened Armenians with heavy taxes, yet was more lenient and friendly towards Kurds. He even signed a treaty of friendship with their princes, according to which.-
- All participating princes were to reclaim their sovereignty over their realms.
- The rule in these Kurdish principalities will continue based on the primo-
geniture system of the past, on condition that the appointment of new princes
be confirmed by a firman (order) from the Ottoman Sultan. - During wars, Kurdish princes and their tribes must help the Sultan with sipahi
(feudal) forces and supplies. - The Ottoman Sultan promises to protect these principalities against outside
aggression. - The Kurdish feudal lords are obliged to pay tribute to the Sultan in the form of
yearly presents.

With this treaty most of Armenia came under direct Ottoman rule. However, there remained some regions, like Hazzo in Kharazan, and Sasun, which kept their ancient sovereign status and did not even pay the yearly tribute demanded by the Ottoman
rulers.
The freedom of those remote pockets was not something Ottomans willingly tolerated. Military campaigns and expeditions were sent with the objective of oppressing these Kurdish and Armenian mountain dwellings. Unable to accomplish their primary objective, the Ottoman regiments diverted their attention to the Kizilbash Kurdish tribes of Sebastia (Sivaz) and Kharpert (Kharput). Ottomans regarded Kizilbash Kurds as heretics (Devil worshipers was and still is a misleading denunciation that Kizilbash Kurds encounter) who, “according to Ottoman policy, coveted the spread of Shiism within the Ottoman Empire.” Armed with this religious intolerance, the Ottoman armies massacred thousands of Kizilbash Kurds during these campaigns.
In Western Armenia, except for the mountainous areas like Sasun, Armenians came under direct Ottomans rule. Since Ottomans were lenient towards the Kurds, the previously existing balance of power changed. As a result, all former Armenian-Kurdish links were severed. Kurdistan was internally divided between several princes who all wanted to be the first in the eyes of the sultans. Eventually, they all became tools in the hands of the Ottoman rulers, who often used on Kurdish prince or tribe against another, thus keeping them in perfect chaos. Ottomans played this “divide and rule” game for a very specific reason. Until 1683 they were busy with their campaigns in southeastern Europe. This consumed a great percentage of their military and economic resources. Therefore, they had to create a policy of divide and rule in Kurdistan in order to secure their posterior. It was not easy to reach the gates of Vienna and return empty-handed. When those soldiers fighting in the European front returned to Istanbul, they were immediately sent eastward to rob the people. This policy was quite successful. It submerged Armenians and Kurds in the quagmire of fighting marauding Ottoman Yenicheris. From the Ottoman point of view, this kept their [Armenians', Kurds'] subjugation permanently confirmed.
Liked it


-
-
-
Post Commentderek bucher
On December 12, 2007 at 2:40 pm
very helpfull!!!!!
Jessica
On December 16, 2007 at 2:05 pm
The citations in this are extremely hard to follow. The numbers within the text are not consecutive and the endnote section is very confusing as well. In light of this, it is hard to believe that much of this is not completely plagiarized from safrastian and chaliand (as a stopped reading about page 5, as a result of the citation issues) or just partly untruth.
GarabetMoumdjian
On January 22, 2008 at 5:55 pm
DEAR JESSICA:
I AM THE AUTHOR OF THE PAPER UNDER QUESTION. I CAN SAY WITHOUT ANY HESITATION THAT THERE IS NO PLAGIARISM HERE. SAFRASTIAN, CHALIAND AND ALL OTHER SOURCES ARE GIVEN DUE RESPECT IN THE ENDNOTES. IT IS NOT MY PROBLEM THAT THE WORD(DOC) FILE I SENT THEM IS NOT SHOWING PROPERLY IN THE HTML FORMAT. SOMEONE AT THEIR END MUST BE RESPONSIBLE TO CORRECT THE CODES SO THAT THE PAPER AND THE ENDNOTES ARE DISPLAYED CORRECTLY. BESIDES, AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE RESEARCH IS DONE IN ARMENIAN PRIMARY SOURCES (NEWSPAPERS OF THE TIMES INCLUDED), ESPECIALLY WHAT CONCERNS THE 1925 (SAID’S) AND THE 1930 (ARARAT) KURDISH REBELIONS. THEREFORE, I INSIST THAT YOU REVIEW YOUR COMMENT IN THE LIGHT OF MY EXPLANATIONS.