Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Komala and Kurdistan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Komala and Kurdistan

    IranScope, Iran
    April 28 2004

    Komala and Kurdistan

    Sam Ghandchi
    http://www.ghandchi.com/327-KomalaEng.htm

    Persian Version
    http://www.ghandchi.com/327-Komala-plus.ht m


    Introduction

    If Eastern Europe is any indication of how national question develops
    in this day and age, we saw the same nationalities that went for
    complete independence in one country, did not choose separation in
    another, the main factor being the attention to democracy in the
    country in question, among different nationalities who live together.
    People under free conditions, live together out of choice and not by
    force, and intimidations and calling them separatist, will not stop
    nationalities from going their own way, and it may even impel them to
    do so.

    Iraq

    If a democracy develops in Iraq, Kurds will be the main force in the
    central government of the whole Iraq, and will not give up such a
    position to become a small national state in the North. Of course if
    the Shiite Islamists in the South, succeed in creating an Islamic
    Republic, then they can push Iraq into partitioning.

    Nonetheless, I doubt it if the Shiite Islamists can push Iraq away
    from a secular state too far. They are using all their force with the
    help of Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), to establish a strong
    foothold in post-US Iraq, after June 30, 2004 deadline, but they are
    dreaming, if they think post-June Iraq can ever become a Khomeini
    state. They can try all their best intimidations, to force the world
    public opinion, that Shiite Islamists are the embodiment of Iraqi
    Shi'a aspirations, but it is hard to be convincing.

    The Iraqi Shiites know well about the experience of Islamism in the
    region, and particularly the Shi'a version of it in the Islamic
    Republic in Iran, the same way the neighbors of Soviet Union knew
    well what Communism is, and so the Shiite Islamist leaders cannot
    deceive people, to gain more base in the future Iraqi state, and
    Kurds have the best chance to fill the vacuum. Also the U.S. is
    hiring back Saddam's Sunni generals, and is in a way reviving
    Saddam's regime, without Saddam, to neutralize the Shiite Islamists.
    Therefore for IRI to play a role in Iraq, similar to Syria's role in
    Lebanon, is not without serious challenges.


    Turkey

    As far as Turkey, the Kurds in Turkey are the most possible
    candidates for a separate state, and all the aspiration for such a
    solution of Great Kurdistan, has always been coming, more from the
    Kurds of Turkey, since racism from *people* of a land against the
    Kurds, is a real thing only in Turkey. Moreover, in both Iraq and
    Iran, the issue of Kurds has been basically with the *government*,
    and not with the people. True that prejudices among the people exist
    too but very minimal.

    For example, Iranians make as much jokes about Rashti or EsfahAnis as
    they make of Kurds, and in fact less for Kurds and more for Rashtis.
    And none of it is comparable to real fascist attitudes towards Kurds,
    which one sees in Turkey, attitudes similar to the way racial attacks
    ended in Armenian Genocide of 1914 in Turkey of the time of Ottomans.
    So I hope the Kurds from Turkey not to generalize their own
    experience, to those of the Kurds of Iran, to agitate anti-Persian
    sentiments.

    Some Kurds call non-Kurd Iranians mollah supporter. The non-Kurd
    Iranians have been fighting IRI for decades now, and this is not
    right for people who have the strong issue of racism in Turkey, to
    presume their case to be the same as the Iranian situation, and to
    create flames between non-Kurd and Kurdish parts of the Iranian
    pro-democracy movement. Non-Kurd Iranians, contrary to Turkey, have
    challenged the IRI mollah regime, side-by-side with the Kurdish
    opposition to IRI, all these years.


    Kurdistan of Iran vs Iraq and Turkey

    Iranian Kurdistan has developed as part of Iran in contrast to
    different parts of Kurdistan of former Ottoman Empire.

    Even more important is the fact that Iran's Kurdistan has not
    developed with Kurdistan of Ottoman Empire, even before the Safavids
    and Chaldran (Chaldoran) treat of 920AH (1541).

    Actually at the time of Moghols, Iran's Kurdistan was under the rule
    of Ardalans, and later on, during the Safavids, Ardalan rule
    continued with Sanandaj as its capital, and Kurdistan had
    semi-autonomy within Iran, and its situation has been completely
    different from Ottoman Kurdistan.

    After World War I, the Ottoman Kurdistan, was divided and those parts
    may have some aspirations to unite again, for example the Kurdistan
    of Iraq and Turkey, but as noted, even Iraqi Kurds see a lot of
    opportunity for themselves in a united Iraq, if a secular democracy
    prevails, and may not pursue united Kurdistan with Turkey. People
    like Jalal Talabani of PUK, have played an important role in the
    struggle for secular democratic republic and federalism for the whole
    of Iraq.

    Furthermore, Iran's Kurdistan had nothing to do with the partitioning
    of Kurdistan of Ottoman empire after WW I. Also Kurds are Iranian
    like the Tajiks, and the Kurdish language is an Iranian language. So
    the situation of Kurdish issues in Iran is very different and is

    basically oppression by the state than by the people. I wish some
    Kurdish nationalists of Turkey would not generalize their situation
    to that of Iranian Kurds.


    Iranian Kurds and IRI

    Iranian Kurds are essentially dealing with the same situation as
    other Iranians. In fact, some Iranian Kurdish groups have been in
    the forefront and leadership of the opposition to IRI, long before
    many other Iranian parts of current Iranian opposition, and I am
    sure, just as we see in Iraq, the Kurds will have a lot of say in the
    post-IRI state, since all these years, they have been one of the most
    important parts of anti-IRI opposition for a secular republic.

    About differences of Iran and Ottoman Empire, and the role of Kurds
    with regards to the history of development of central government in
    Iran, I have written in details in my book on Kurdistan, where my
    focus had been Iran's Kurdistan.

    The reality is that globalization has made separation of small
    nations to be easy, and small nations nowadays stay together if they
    want to, not because they have to, as I explained in Globalization
    and Federalism.

    Basically as I have written in my article Why Federalism for
    Kurdistan and Rest of Iran, federalism is the best solution to avoid
    risking the breakup of future post-IRI democracy in Iran. A breakup
    as witnessed in former Yugoslavia.

    Insulting various nationalities like Kurds, is the worst anyone in
    the Iranian opposition can do, which can infuriate these
    nationalities and make them lose hope in a united Iran to look for
    separation. Actually I have seldom seen among the Iranian
    opposition, and the Iranian pro-democracy movement has a high opinion
    of the Kurdish opposition, and many non-Kurdish Iranians lost their
    lives in defense of the movement of Iranian Kurdish people against
    the Islamic Republic.

    The attacks on Kurds have not come from Iranian people but were come
    from IRI, when Islamic Republic Revolutionary Guards (pAsdArs and
    basijis), who insulted and raped Kurdish mothers and daughters.


    Popular Movements In Kurdistan

    Among Iranian Kurdish groups, I have seen a few individuals in some
    groups, who may call the Fars or Persians by racist remarks, equating
    all non-Kurd Iranians with mollahs, but these people are a very tiny
    minority among the Kurdish groups.

    The Kurdish groups like Komala are actually a very important part of
    the Iranian opposition as a whole, and they do *not* address other
    parts of Iranian movement by racist remarks. Komala cares for the
    success of democracy and human rights in the whole of Iran, and they
    see themselves as part of the pro-democracy movement of Iran, and
    have contributed a lot to its development and leadership in the last
    25 years.

    The separatist tendencies in Iranian Kudistan, comprise a very small
    part of the political spectrum, and most people in Iran's Kurdistan
    see their future closely tied with the rest of Iran. As noted, I
    have explained this with a thorough historical research in my book
    about the formation of central state in Iran, when focusing on the
    situation of Kurdistan in Iranian history.

    After the fall of Shah's regime, Kurdistan was among the first areas
    of Iran that rose against the Islamic Republic. The reason is not
    hard to see. During the reign of Safavids when Iranian government
    was an Islamic State, albeit a monarchy but with a strong role of
    mollahs, we saw the main opposition first to form in Sunni areas of
    Iran like ghochAn and Bojnurd and Kurdistan.

    Even Afghans who invaded Iran and attack Isfahan, started their
    commotion when a Shi'a fatwa of Iran's mollahs, who had pronounced
    anybody raping Sunni women in Afghanistan would go to heaven. And
    the fatwa had outraged the Afghans to a point that they invaded Iran
    during Shah Soltan Hossein's reign and ended the Safavid Dynasty.

    So the Kurds of Iran being a strong Sunni minority were the first to
    oppose a Shi'a Islamist state in Iran. Actually Sheikh Ezzeddin
    Hosseini who has been labeled as a leftist and the like, represents a
    Shafei Sunni religious opposition to IRI. Ezzedin Hosseini and
    Moftizadeh were active in Kurdistan even during the Shah, and
    contrary to what IRI tries to depict, they were not with Shah's
    agents.

    Actually Ezzeddin Hosseini and Moftizadeh used to struggle against
    Sufism that was promoted at the time of the Shah in Kurdistan. Even
    Moftizadeh who in the beginning of IRI cooperated with IRI, was later
    murdered by IRI, because he did not approve of IRI Shi'a rule. So
    the issue of a Shi'a religious state was always a big fear for Sunni
    Kurds.

    The Kurds were attacked by IRI Revolutionary Guards (pasdArs) with
    the same wordings of Shiite anti-Sunni verbal curses. The IRI
    Revolutionary Guards had a religious hatred for Sunni Kurds, whom
    they would call Omari, etc and they raped and killed the innocent
    people of Kurdistan, when the first peaceful demonstration against
    Shi'a rule started in Kurdistan in 1979.

    The people of Kurdistan took arms only in *self-defense* and not
    because of being guerrillas, which they were not. It is important to
    note that the armed struggle in Kurdistan has*never* been a guerrilla
    warfare like the cheriki movements in other parts of Iran, not even
    at the time of the Shah.

    The jonbeshe mollA AvAreh and Sharifzadeh in 1966, at the time of
    the Shah, were an armed *mass* movement, and not a guerrilla
    movement, and it was the peasants who rose up against the Shah's
    regime, and some intellectual groups and individuals from abroad
    joined them later, and some of them like Parviz Nikkhah betrayed the
    movement in Shah's prison, but those groups were hardly any important
    part of that mass movement.


    Komala

    The history of Komala actually starts at the time of the Shah from
    the 1966 movement led by Mollah Avareh and Sharifzadeh. Foad Mostafa
    Soltani who was killed during IRI, as well as current Komala
    leadership like Abdollah Mohtadi, date back to that time, when Mollah
    Avareh and Sharifzadeh were killed. The leadership actually were
    like many other Iranian political groups that originated from
    Aryamehr University in Tehran.

    Before the 60's, many leaders of Iranian political movement
    originated from Technology Faculty of Tehran University, people like
    my own cousin Ahmad Ghandchi of 16-Azar, who was one of the three
    students killed on Dec 7, 1953, were the 50's generation. The
    brightest students like those of Daneshkadeh Fani and Aryamehr
    University were the ones who were originators of the main opposition
    groups during Shah's time.

    Komala dates back to those years and to Aryamehr University, and
    actually these activists did not view the issue of democracy in
    Kurdistan as separate from the rest of Iran. They were *not* even
    related to the hezbe demokrAte kordestAn, which dated from the
    1941-53 period with views similar to hezbe toodeh. They were closer
    to like-minded non-Kurdish Iranian groups, in other parts of Iran,
    than to hezbe demokrate kordestan, which was in Kurdistan.

    Komala just like all other Iranian intellectual groups of 60's and
    70's, was more of a new leftist organization, with the difference
    that its base was in country-side of Kurdistan. Also because of
    opposing guerilla movement, Komala in those years, sided more with
    Mao, and engaged in successful political mobilization of the masses,
    in contrast to all other intellectual groups of other parts of Iran
    that remained intellectual groups with negligible success to create a
    mass base.

    As time passed, and Komala saw the issue of dictatorship of socialist
    countries, they rejected China and Albania, etc and started searching
    beyond the existing socialism, although they still refered/refer to
    themselves as socialist. I should note that even when they were
    Communists, they opposed Soviet Union and even their support of
    China, when they did, was not like some other groups that were
    lackeys of the Chinese Communists. Komala leadership were always
    independent thinkers.

    In the years after 1981, they united with a very small group from
    other parts of Iran by the name of Sahand, and formed a Communist
    Party of Iran. But soon they saw this is not what they see as their
    ideal. They had one split where basically the old group they had
    united with, became the Worker-communist Party of Iran, seeking a
    Leninist policy. In a short while, Komala even separated from the
    Communist Party of Iran, and called itself Komala again.

    A few from Komala stayed with Workers Communist Party. Also there
    were a number of people from original Komala, who stayed with the
    Communist Party of Iran, call themselves Komalah (with an "h" at the
    end), rather than going with the revived Komala, and they are still
    part of Communist Party of Iran.

    Most of the original team is with Komala, who after discarding
    support for China and Albania, started looking beyond Communism .
    Even what they call socialism, in their interviews today, they
    clearly state their ideals are not anything like what they see in
    current socialist countries. In their ideals, they emphasize
    democracy, human rights, and social justice within the new world
    development and progress of our times and they support a secular
    democratic federal republic in Iran.

    After studying the relevant literature, the above is my understanding
    of Komala and its development. To read heir own views on these
    issues, please consult their web site.


    Federalism and IRI

    The issue of Kurds and federalism is one of those issues that touches
    on the region, and IRI wants to broadcast a view that non-Kurd
    Iranian political groups do not want federalism, and tries to depict
    the proponents of federalism as separatists, whereas the majority of
    Iranian opposition today is beginning to side with federalism, and
    the Fars ultranationalists is a very small minority.

    As I have explained on numerous times, those acting as nationalists
    calling the federalist programs as separatist, are more Islamic
    Republic proponents rather than being Iranian nationalists, and their
    fear is that accepting federalism, would open the way for asking for
    more democratic rights for the whole of Iran by all Iranians.

    It is IRI misusing ultranationalist facade, just as they did during
    the Iraq War, to justify the IRI despotism. Ultranationalist slogans
    are a preposterous flag for Islamists, when they have had no respect
    for national demands of all Iranians all these years, and when they
    have been pushing Islamism on Iran trying to eliminate even Norouz
    from Iran, a New Year celebration that Kurds celebrate, as much as
    any other part Iranians, if not more.

    Recently in Iran, the Islamic Republic agents issued a fake
    communiqué, against the rights of Iranian nationalities in education,
    forging the signature of Jebhe Melli leaders . The forged document
    has been condemned by Jebhe Melli leadership inside Iran. Thus it is
    important to know how IRI is trying to attack the Kurdish movement
    with such despicable ultra-nationalist fabrications.

    The reality is that the slaughter of leftists by IRI in 1981 and
    1988, and the murder of leftists by the Shah's regime, were because
    the left had been the most ardent part of the opposition to monarchy
    in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, and to IRI in 80's and 90's. This is
    why they killed even the activists who only had one year jail terms,
    and were inside the IRI prisons in 1988, by Khomeini's decree.

    IRI miserably accepted the peace with Saddam, on Saddam's terms.
    Khomeini committed a mass murder of the leftists and others in
    September 1988 to ensure to keep the society silent after signing the
    accord. And IRI did not stop at killing the leftists, and even
    slaughtered Forouhars later, people who were never leftists.


    Let me note that my own disagreement with the left is not because of
    their struggle against IRI and Shah's despotism. In fact, in that
    regard, I support them fully, and I think they have given the most
    number of sacrifices in Iran's movement for democracy, both during
    the Shah and during IRI, and this is why the intelligence agents of
    Shah and IRI have the most hatred for the leftists.

    My disagreement with the left is because I think their program is
    obsolete at the time of post-industrial development and
    globalization. I have written my views about the left in the past, in
    details and do not need to repeat.


    Other Groups in Kurdistan

    Many groups that talk of presence in Kurdistan, may have a few
    sympathizers there. However, Komala, in my opinion, is the only new
    political group, not just in Kurdistan, but in the whole of Iran of
    post-1953 years, that ever had and has a mass base, first in the
    country-side and then in the cities.

    It is true, that in the years of 1941-1953, before the CIA coup,
    hezbe toodeh (Tudeh Party ), and Jebhe Melli (Iran National Front),
    both had a mass base. And in Kurdistan, in the same period, hezbe
    demokrAte kordestan had a mass base. But after 1953, basically I
    would say all groups, including mojahedin and cherikha, which were
    bigger, hardly had any mass base, and were basically intellectual
    groups.

    Even hezbe toodeh and JebheMelli of the 1953-1979 period, hardly had
    any mass base. I believe Komala is the only exception, being a real
    mass party, which I think is a good subject to study, as to why they
    were so successful in organizing the ordinary people, while others
    elsewhere in Iran failed.

    When Komala was fighting IRI, almost 90% of the left in other parts
    of Iran, not only supported Khomeini in 1979, but the left supported
    hostage-taking and the overthrow of Bazargan's government. And
    unfortunately 90% of Iranian progressive movement was leftist in
    those days.

    It is true that some small groups viewed khordad 1360 (may 1980) as
    an reactionary coup like Mohammad Ali Shah's bombardment of majles,
    and tried to reverse it by an uprising in 1981, which did not work,
    and they were slaughtered with no result, because the progressive
    movement, including those forces themselves, had made error after
    error in appeasing Islamists, and that is how the 1981 IRI massacre
    of the left in all areas of Iran, except Kurdistan, was successful.

    Needless to say that, in 1981, I was even threatened to death by some
    of leftist groups for questioning Marxism. Nonetheless, I condemn the
    anti-Communist bigotry of Islamic Republic of Iran, and I condemn the
    violations against the human rights of leftists by IRI forces, just
    as I condemn the suppression of human rights of all other
    pro-democracy activists of Iran.

    There are so many errors in Iranian progressive movement. I have
    discussed those issues in details, and have noted the major trends in
    the historical turns of the last 25 years in my book Futurist Iran.


    Conclusion

    I do not care much for the IRI reformists including IRI president
    Khatami, although I support a real peaceful change to a federal
    secular republic in Iran.

    Iran and Iranians are different from IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran)
    and IRI officials. Iran and Iranians are very modern, and we had a
    constitutional revolution calling for civil law and modern society,
    with a system based on Constitutional Law, over one hundred years
    ago.

    In fact Islamic Theocracy has now helped the *grass root* in Iran to
    resent mollahs, and to call for secularity and futurist modernity,
    and a referendum for new constitution, and regime change, at the
    deepest levels of society, unprecedented in any other Middle Eastern
    society:

    Iranian political groups should recognize a federalist solution for
    Iran, before the Islamic Republic falls apart, or else Iran may turn
    into another Yugoslavia. The Komala Party can be play an important
    role to help the success of a democratic solution in Iran.

    Hoping for a Futurist, Federal, Democratic, and Secular Republic in
    Iran,

    Sam Ghandchi, Editor/Publisher
    IRANSCOPE
    http://www.iranscope.com
    April 28, 2004

    From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Working...
X