| Introduction
The Syrian Kurds are rarely featured in the media. This is also true of academic research dedicated to Syria, even research on the Kurdish question. Most works concentrate on the Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iraq, and to a lesser degree, Iran.1 This is not only true for a specific period. The Kurdish factor in Syria has also been a marginal issue in classic works about the French Mandate (Longrigg 1958; Khoury 1987) and the period of independence (Raymond 1980) in the Levant. The only exceptions are the works of Ismet Sharif Vanly, which are generally biased in favor of the Kurds (Vanly 1968, 1978, 1992).
It is only since the 1990s, as a result of the increasing importance of human rights issues in all countries of the world, that the first complete and detailed studies of the Syrian Kurds have emerged (Human Rights Watch 1991, 1996; McDowall 1998). These studies offer some essential chronological reference points, but, even more so, they put particular emphasis on the Kurdish status as a “minority” with respect to the Syrian legal framework. Above all, the riots in Qamishli in March 2004 encouraged the publication of a series of works (Montgomery 2005; Yildiz 2005) and articles (Gambill 2004: 1–4; Gauthier 2005: 97–114, 2006: 217–31; Lowe 2006: 1–7; Tejel 2006: 117–33, 2007b: 269– 76) on the Kurdish issue in Syria. Despite increasing interest in the Kurdish question in Syria, there remains a dearth of anthropological, historic, and political perspectives on the subject.
Many factors are responsible for these gaps in information. First, following contradictory logic, the Syrian Kurds were considered as either a group that could be easily assimilated into an Arab majority environment2 or a peripheral population which played only a marginal role in the evolution of contemporary Syria in contrast to other, more “compact minorities” (Hourani 1947) such as the Druzes and the Alawites. Also, the lack of a strong political movement had been considered proof that Kurdish “identity demands” were only a resort of the elite (notables and landowners) due to their loss of power in the face of the socioeconomic transformations of the country.
On another level, the field of Kurdish studies, which is still meager, has only become a reality since the 1980s and 1990s.3 From a more general perspective, the focus of historians and political scientists on the authoritative role of the state and the ruling family, Arab nationalism and the Arab–Israeli conflict, and the position of Syria in an international context marked by the Cold War (Van Dam 1979, 1996; Kienle 1990; Perthes 1995; Ehteshami and Hinnebusch 1997) had omitted all of the cross-cutting dynamics affecting all areas of Syrian society despite the official statements regarding “Arab” and “socialist” Syria. These dynamics include modes of consumption, ethnicity, Sufism, unofficial settlements in large cities, and a growing generational division. This book seeks to contribute to the new momentum given to contemporary studies on Syria by a new generation of researchers who take their investigations in many new directions, demonstrating an interest in the “margins” and giving priority to anthropological and sociological dimensions (Chiffoleau 2006; Dupret et al. 2007), without neglecting the historical dimensions. In truth, field work in Syria has become more accessible since the end of the 1990s, giving way to valuable anthropological research about the Kurdish shaykhs in Damascus, Aleppo, and Kurd Dagh (Böttcher 1998; Christmann 1998; Pinto 2004). It remains extremely difficult, however, to conduct a field study4 with Kurdish identity as its central subject, because Kurdishness continues to be considered, in spite of some perceptible changes, a sign of fitna (dividing of society) by the regime. Finally, our reflection has benefited from the revival since the end of the 1990s of studies of the mandatory period (Gelvin 1998; Méouchy 2002; Mizrahi 2003; Méouchy and Sluglett 2004; Provence 2005).
Rather than summarize each of the chapters that make up this work, we would like to highlight several themes which we think are important from a theoretical and empirical point of view. The first of these themes concerns the necessity of re-evaluating the role of the mandatory period (1918–46) in the emergence of certain political and social dynamics in Kurdish communities beginning at the time of the construction of contemporary Syria to the present and which belong to the longue durée. We also wish to emphasize the importance of the mandatory period in the establishment of a certain “political culture” of Kurdish civil and religious representatives, which were known for peaceful confrontation and the accommodation of an ambiguous political scene. Finally, we will briefly touch on the subject of “margins” in the Kurdish groups and the necessity of both establishing “bridges” between the Kurds and other Syrian populations and of articulating a detailed account of the history of the Kurds, which sometimes involves temporal differences from that of the rest of the Syrian population.
The Kurds under the Mandate: between continuity and change
An analysis of the mandatory archives, Kurdish publications from the 1930s and the 1940s, and field studies done in Syria confirms that the mandatory period must be considered both a phase of continuity in relation to the Ottoman period and a time of change for the Levantine populations, including the Kurds. This period should be considered as a phase of continuity as the heritage of the ethnoreligious (millet) organization of the Ottoman Empire5 was not eradicated and continued to shape notions of policy and community long after the decline of Istanbul as the political center of the region (Karpat 1988: 35–53). The group which is known and recognized under the generic name of “Kurd” is far from being homogenous. It includes several dialects, religious denominations (Sunnism, Shi‘ism, Alevism, and Yazidism), and various social and geographic identities (both tribal and nontribal). The anthropologist Martin van Bruinessen nevertheless affirms that the Kurds have been conscious of their distinctive identity for some centuries, despite internal divisions. The “borders” defining the Kurds have, however, changed during the course of the centuries. Before World War I, the opposition between Christians and Muslims, tribes and nontribes, proved to be the main determinants of divisions between the populations of the Ottoman Empire (Bruinessen 1994: 21–6).
Thus, ethnicity was not a predominant issue for the Kurdish populations before the creation of the new states in the Middle East. Belonging to an ethnic group6 was only one component of their identity. Its importance fluctuated during the course of the reinvention of their identity and adjusted according to the whim of their relations with a multitude of actors. What is important are the personal networks of affiliation constructed by individuals, the ethnic network being only one among many. An individual or a community can also have more than one identifying characteristic, such as denominational, ethnic, or urban. Therefore, categories such as “ethnicity” and “community” are created, legitimized, and perpetuated in the context of a complex political equation. They do not exist as “primordial” categories (Geertz 1973), but as groups in a relational dynamic (Barth 1969). Under certain historic conditions, ethnic or national, even transnational identities, can be placed at the forefront and determine the economic, social, and political stakes, but it is, above all, longevity that indicates which identities are preeminent in a specific group (Gershoni and Jankowski 1997: xx).
The reason that ethnicity can serve as a political tool is that it can be perceived as a natural source of social and political cohesion (Berman and Lonsdale 1992: 317). The engagement of individuals and groups around an ethnic identity can only occur via an identity discourse (Vali 2003), a doctrine (Kedourie 1986), an ideology (Breuilly 1993), or even a leap of the imagination (Anderson 1983). Nationalism, with its vague contours, is able to draw together diverse assemblages which can be identified with an “ethnic group.” In order to overcome the divisions which exist within the community, nationalism must integrate into its discourse diverse sensibilities (conservative, progressive, supporters of the west, etc.) and encourage “nationalist” actions which touch the entire Kurdish population and merges all aspects (social, religious, linguistic, tribal, and local) of group belonging.
The role of “political entrepreneurs” in the essentialization of relationships with other groups is critical (Smith 1981: 108). The elites set themselves up as spokesmen of the “imagined community” (Anderson 1983) and construct, thanks to their intellectual and organizational capacities, the “national” group. In order to exist, nationalism requires “objective” elements (race, language, kinship, etc.) upon which a consciousness of this distinction or difference (identity) can be based. This distinct identity may then be introduced by “political entrepreneurs” into the modern political field as a conscious and rational tool.
However, for anthropologist Olivier Roy, ethnic nationalism rarely involves political action. Forms of political action are most often created outside of a strictly ethnic logic, even when ethnicity is the discourse “par excellence” of the players. “Ethnicity is operative, but hardly explicative” (Roy 2004: 65). There would be other operative logistics in political mobilization such as infraethnics in the workings of ‘asabiyya (group solidarity), supraethnics, in this case, in relation to religious references like the Shi’is in Iran, who founded a loyalty to the Iranian nation-state despite ethnic divisions.
Additionally, as asserted by Rashid Hamo, one of the founders of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Syria in 1957, the concept of a Kurdish community, defined as a group distinguished by one trait, linguistic or denominational, which the group considered as “specific” and a “border” of demarcation from the “others” during a period of conflict, was not a reality at the beginning of the 1920s.7 On the other hand, patrilineal relationships, local, religious, and tribal ties determined the social practices and the mobilizations of the Kurdish populations of northern Syria. It was not until the arrival of the Kurdish nationalist intellectuals, formerly based in Istanbul, that the idea of a “national Kurdish group” took on a certain reality among a small minority of the Kurdish population in Syria. From that time, the perception of Kurds as a “community” endowed with a sense of solidarity among its diverse elements must be challenged at least as of the time of the French Mandate. The mandatory period also perpetuated the triangular relationship between European powers, the local states, and “minorities” that had been in place since the nineteenth century8 and which have continued up to the present day (Khoury and Méouchy 2007: 20–1). In effect, the establishment of the mandate system in the period following the World War I permitted France and Great Britain to remain in the Middle East. While France was focused on establishing the mandate in Syria and Lebanon, Great Britain implicated itself in the management of the new Iraqi state.
Socioeconomic projects to raise the status of Syrian Jazira and the disagreement between France and Turkey in regard to the establishment of the Turko- Syrian border favored the utilization of the “Kurdish card” by the French (Tatchjian 2004; Tejel 2007a). As a result, thousands of Kurdish refugees, including the instigators of the Kurdish movement in Turkey, moved to Syria. Although France did not always present a clear and consistent policy toward the Kurds, Kurdish “political entrepreneurs,” intellectuals, and tribal chiefs could, to a certain extent, develop their community’s strategies of formation and action, including the organization of a military revolt against the Kemalist regime, around Ararat in the northeast of Turkey in 1927–31 (Nouri Pacha 1986).
The price of this alliance between modernistic elites and tribal chiefs was the nationalist movement’s dependence on infraethnic group solidarity and finally a progressive, mutual intermingling that permitted the formation of an “identity between ‘asabiyya and the ethnic group” (Roy 2004: 47). Also, the involvement of the Kurdish movement in the Ararat revolt indicates that active Kurdish nationalists in Syria had their view turned toward other Kurdish regions, particularly in Turkey and Iraq. From then on, the orientation of the Kurdish demands toward these two countries, under the regime of Hafiz al-As‘ad, was well established. It was inspired by the incontestable reality of the transborder character of the Kurdish question (Bozarslan 1997: 291–347) and the understanding, on the part of the Syrian Kurds, that the border was more a common space, in terms of language, tribal affiliation, ethnicity, and family, than a line of separation. At the same time, the exploitation of the Kurds by France reinforced the existing dynamics by exacerbating the existing divisions between the already fragmented Kurdish groups. Thus, French officials of the mandatory administration prodded Kurdish nationalists (with the support of the tribal chiefs) to concentrate their political activities on Jazira (Terrier Plan). Each Kurdish enclave was treated as a separate territory, with no political ties between them. What is more, the poor state of the roads between various regions of northern Syria made relations between the Kurds and the creation of a unified Kurdish “space or envisioned community” (Deutsch 1962) very difficult.
Politics and infrapolitics
The instrumentalist and “situational” approaches to ethnicity do not explain why non-elites clung to their ethnicity and why members of an “ethnic group” involve themselves in the “identity” movement. Certainly, groups of intraethnic solidarity, like certain tribes, may use ethnic discourse to disguise the “selfish” interests of the ‘asabiyya, but how could the militant involvement of nontribal elements, in the name of ethnic identity, be explained? If some tribes use the “ethnic” movement to advance their own situation, would this mean that for tribal members, ethnicity is superfluous and stripped of meaning? Finally, can the lack of political action around the issue of ethnic identity in a given state mean that there are no problems in areas where ethnicity play a predominant role? The Syrian Kurdish movement has traditionally employed a strategy of peaceful action, coupled with a moderate political program. The Syrian parliament which emerged during the mandatory period had, despite its failings, permitted the political integration of civil representatives from the Kurdish communities. However, the opening of the Syrian political space during the mandate was not the only factor to explain the apparent accommodation of Kurdish nationalist leaders in the Syrian legal system.
As with other tribal chiefs and ethnoreligious community representatives of the Levant, Kurdish leaders were enlisted by the French authorities, creating dependency in regard to the administrative machine. Even though these preferential relationships opened ways for Kurdish ethnicity to establish its local power, the room for maneuverability of the Kurdish representatives was limited by the French. Kurdish elites were forced to navigate in a political arena with several other players (mandatory powers, officers of the Intelligence Services, local state, minority players, etc.) who often took opposing positions and had ambiguous attitudes toward Kurdish identity claims in Syria, attitudes which were maintained throughout the mandate and beyond. In the postmandate era, Syrian political space became progressively less tolerant of ethnic pluralism. The “Arabness” of Syria, anti-imperialism (and as a corollary, the rejection of western democracy), enmity toward Israel, and for certain sectors, pan-Arab aspirations constituted elements of a “consensus” between the principal political and military forces in the country, excluding all other visions of the construction of the state and Syrian society. The steady progression of an ideological unanimism in Syria encouraged a strategy of “dissimulation” (Mardin 1977; Scott 1990) among the Kurdish communities. This strategic act shows that under certain conditions, social, ethnic, and religious groups may choose to cultivate their differences in order to challenge the official unanimous ideology. The “permeability of the disguise” depends on the degree of dominance in the relationship: “The greater the disparity in power between dominant and subordinate, and the more arbitrarily it is exercised, the more the public transcript9 of subordinates will take on a stereotyped, ritualistic cast” (Scott 1990: 3).
Like all Syrian citizens, the Kurds had been coerced into acting as though they adhered to the regime, its leader, and its principles (Wedeen 1998, 1999). But the Kurds had also been encouraged, for two decades (1963–84), to cultivate their identity away from the public sphere. This fact guides our interest toward the actions and strategies of Kurdish players in the domain of infrapolitics, “the silent partner of a loud form of public resistance” (Scott 1990: 199). To affirm the importance of practices of infrapolitics is to also affirm that beyond the official unanimist façade in Syria, Kurdish society, and Syrian society in general, has not been hindered as much as has been suggested (Droz-Vincent 2004). To the contrary, somewhere between submission and revolt (Badie 1987: 226, 231–2), there exists a political terrain which is much more difficult to grasp than that of open political struggle.
The vivacity of the infrapolitics of subordinate elements can more easily be measured after the “mask” is removed. The road from “dissimulation” to “visibility” depends, in large measure, on political opportunities because “depending upon circumstances and political structures, even the most die-hard nationalists may choose to emphasize their socio-economic status, civic identity, or religious affiliation over their distinct ethno-nationalism” (Natali 2005: xxiii). However, as the massive mobilizations of the Syrian Kurds in 2004 confirmed, the perception of windows of opportunity by the “challengers” can also be influenced by subjectivity. It is then necessary to look not only at rational factors, but also at areas of subjectivity.
Multivariant temporalities
The mandatory and postmandatory periods (1946–63) were witness to two parallel and nonexclusive dynamics: on the one hand, the progressive ethnicization of individuals and groups known as Kurds and, on the other, the formation of a “civil society”10 which relied on the active participation of members of all the “communities” based not on communal solidarity but on ideological commitment and political factions (Syrian nationalism, pan-Arabism, communism, etc.). The Kurds had been subjected to a large number of legal measures which had affected all Syrian populations, such as the establishment of a state of emergency since 1963. Aside from the emergence of a regime with an authoritative stance toward individual liberties, there were other actions promoted by the Ba‘athist regime which did not only affect the Kurds, such as the Arabization of toponyms in Christian villages. Rural exodus had been another socioeconomic transformation touching all peripheral regions. There were clearly many possibilities for “bridging the gap” between the Kurds and mainstream Syrian society. However, it is necessary to remember that the politics of the Syrian regimes has inadvertently but nevertheless directly contributed to the ethnicization of relations between the Kurds and the other populations. The Kurds, understood by the government as a “community” or “group” apart, have been the object of specifically discriminatory policies, such as being forbidden to teach their language, the “Arab belt” project in Jazira, revoking of Syrian citizenship for 120,000 people, as well as the institutionalized symbolic violence of having their ethnic identity excluded from the definition of Syrianness. Finally, the statement of the “exteriority” of the Kurds progressively nourished the sentiment among the Kurds that they constituted a “national minority.”11
Furthermore, Kurdish groups have not only been affected by local and national sociopolitical transformations, but also by transborder dynamics,12 in regard to their “macro-ethnicity” (Roy 1991: 22). These transborder dynamics include tribal, familial, and religious networks, armed Kurdish struggles in Turkey (1927–31; 1984–2007) and Iraq (1943–45; 1961–70; 1986–88), and the increasing independence of Iraqi Kurdistan since 1991. Therefore, a history alternating references common to all Syrians with a detailed chronology, carefully inscribed in the Kurds’ own reality, has become a necessity.
We are aware that we have not exhausted all levels of analysis (Revel 1996), nor covered all relevant geographic areas or the broad range of themes – including gender issues, land distribution, mixed marriages, and so on – which exist in the margins not only of the Syrian political system, but also of Kurdish political parties, in bringing to light the complexity of Kurdish populations and their integration into the Syrian society. However, this task would require a much easier access to the field and a collective and interdisciplinary effort. We nevertheless hope to have introduced new questions and provided additional information, which will allow us to advance our knowledge and understanding of the Kurds of Syria.
Acknowledgements
After having studied Kurdish nationalism in Syria during the French Mandatory period (1920–46) I was interested in extending my reflection on strategies of integration utilized by “minorities” in new states and the shifting of collective identities in the former Ottoman territories up to the present. This book is the result of my attempt to examine these issues in the context of contemporary Syria.
I am indebted to Hamit Bozarslan who took the time to read and comment on all parts of the manuscript during its preparation. Nadine Méouchy and Elizabeth Picard shared with me their intellectual wisdom, thus helping me to formulate my
own approach on the subject of Kurds in Syria. Conversations with Myriam Ababsa, Seda Altug, Julie Gauthier, Sirwan Hajji Husayn, Siamend Hajo, Paulo G. Pinto, Eva Savelsberg, and Stefan Winter also contributed to the development
of the hypotheses presented herein. Between 2001 and 2007 I undertook research for this book in Syria, Iraq, Britain, France, Germany, and Switzerland, and I wish to thank those who facilitated my research in these places. In particular,
I would like to extend my gratitude to those Kurds who consented to be interviewed, though sometimes under difficult circumstances.
It was a pleasure working with the Routledge staff. In particular, Natalja Mortensen, editorial assistant, was an enthusiastic supporter from the very start and saw the work through the various stages of production. Finally, Emily Welle and Jane Welle have showed a great understanding, thanks to which they endeavored to translate and polish my long French sentences.
I thank all of the above mentioned for their invaluable contribution and assistance.
I alone am responsible for any and all flaws that remain.
One of the maps contained in this book has previously appeared in other sources. I would like to thank the editors of Peter Lang for granting me permission to draw from
• Le mouvement kurde en exil. Continuités et discontinuités du nationalisme kurde sous le mandat français en Syrie et au Liban (1925–46). Map 1. Kurdish enclaves in Northern Syria, page 36. Copyright © Peter Lang, Bern, 2007. |
