Historical dictionary of the Kurds

Editor’s Foreword

In today’s world of sovereign states, there is not much tolerance for a “people” without a state, even when the people is larger than the populations f many states. This applies most decidedly to the Kurds, some 25 million strong, depending on the count, who are divided among three large multipeople states in the Middle East and a growing diaspora in Europe and North America. This is their first misfortune. The second is that the Kurds developed a sense of nationhood too late, after the region had been carved up, which only frightened the countries they lived in traditionally. The reaction was more often repression, if not outright warfare, rather than accommodation and provision of reasonable autonomy. But the third, and worst, misfortune is that the Kurds, while recognizing one another as branches of the same family, are still deeply divided in their allegiances and sometimes fight one another more bitterly than they fight those who dominate them. Thus, while the situation can improve for the Kurdish people and the fall of Sadam Hussein is exceptionally promising, there is always a cause to fear a reversal and new setbacks.

Writing about a “people” is not as easy as writing about a state. It is necessary, first, to show where the people resided at various times in the past, what holds them together and what divides them, and how they manage to survive as a coherent group in a world of states. Only then can one concentrate on the persons, places, and events that mark their history or consider how they survive economically, maintain privileged social relations with one another and relate to outsiders, and preserve their culture, language, and religion. Thus while writing about a people is hard to do, it can be done, indeed, has been done very successfully in the Historical Dictionary of the Kurds, with its introduction providing an overall view plus a look at more specific circumstances, a substantial dictionary going into the essential details, and the chronology, which traces a longer and more impressive history than many would expect.

Naturally, there is much more to be said about the Kurds, so the bibliography offers many helpful leads. Aside from the sheer difficulty in gathering the basic information, when writing about a people—especially the Kurds—it is necessary to
maintain a proper balance between different groups and factions and between the people and its neighbors. This is often harder for an insider han for an outsider, but the outsider must compensate by having a keen understanding of and strong affinity for the subject. That is certainly the ase for the author of this book, Michael M. Gunter, who has been studying and teaching about the region for more than three decades. He is presently professor of political science at the Tennessee Technological University and a leading authority not only on the Kurds but also on he Armenians and Turks. Dr. Gunter has written numerous articles and chapters as well as general books on the Kurdish question, the Kurds in Iraq, and the Kurds in Turkey. This historical dictionary sums up the situation in another form, one that is particularly handy and will doubtless
prove very useful for all those who want to know more about the Kurds, including many Kurds, I am sure. It is thus the ideal first volume for our ew series on peoples.

Preface

This historical dictionary of the Kurds contains mainly historical and political entries, with an emphasis on topics closer to the present day. Nevertheless, I have sought to include the most important earlier names and events, too. In addition, I have included a number of entries on important cultural, economic, and social topics, among others. As an aid to readers, many of the entries have extensive cross-references in boldface type. There inevitably is a certain amount of subjectivity when choosing topics for entries. Furthermore, I am sure that I have simply neglected to provide entries on topics that deserved to be included. Therefore, I welcome suggestions from readers for additional entries in any future edition.

In writing a dictionary on the Kurds in the English language, I have attempted to simplify the transliteration of names and terms as much as possible. Given the rich variety of spellings among Western scholars and the linguistic differences among the Kurds themselves, it was not possible to be completely consistent in my transliterations. Rather, I have used spellings that are most comfortable to me, an English-speaking reader and writer. Although the purist might object, the result should be that readers will be easily able to identify quickly what they are reading about.

In some cases, Kurds and those who write about them most commonly use the Kurdish term, while in others they use the English. To compound the inconsistency, Kurdish acronyms are sometimes commonly employed with full English terms. The Kurdistan Workers Party, commonly known by its Kurdish acronym, PKK, is a good example. By contrast, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) are usually known by both their English full names and their English acronyms. Therefore, by seeking to use the terms that seem to me most common, I have not been consistent in regard to language. Nevertheless, the result is that I have used terms that readers should most easily recognize. In most entries, I have sought to use both full Kurdish and English names upon first mention. Another problem of consistency involves the birth and death years in many of the entries on persons. Because of the unsettled conditions usually prevailing in Kurdistan, even today, many Kurds simply do not know when they were born. Therefore, I have not been able to list dates for all my person entries. This problem becomes even greater for historical figures. Nevertheless, I have been able to establish the dates for a number of persons and have entered them when I could. The result is an obvious inconsistency in my entries, although they have the merit of giving as much information as they can. Again, I would welcome comments from my readers, some of whom may undoubtedly help fill in a few of the numerous gaps here.

In writing this historical dictionary, I have always sought to be as objective as possible without being egregiously politically correct. Therefore, I have offered many criticisms both overt and implied of the states in which the Kurds live, as well as of the Kurds themselves. To do otherwise would have overly sanitized and missed much of the essence of the subject with which I am dealing. In addition, of course, I am writing about a subject about which writings are inherently very emotional and subjective. As a Westerner and an American, my relative objectivity is possibly an advantage I possess that will make up for some of the lapses in understanding I inevitably suffer from in not being a Kurd.

I have learned a great deal from my friendships and acquaintances with other scholars who have written about the Kurds, as well as many Kurdish leaders. The scholarly writings of Martin van Bruinessen, Mehrdad Izady, and David McDowall, among many others, have been specially helpful. I have also learned much from such activists as Barham Salih and Najmaldin Karim. Special thanks are due to Mehrdad zady for the detailed maps he provided for this historical dictionary and the understanding he gave me on many points. Lokman I. Meho also elped me with several dates and suggested some historical entries. I, of course, am entirely to blame for any misunderstandings, misinterpretations, r sheer errors that inevitably have crept into my book. Again, I welcome comments from my readers so that I can make necessary corrections in any future edition. My e-mail address is mgunter@tntech.edu.