Assistant Professor, Department of Kurdish Language and Culture, Mardin Artuklu University, Turkey
The Sykes-Picot Agreement, agreed privately by France and Britain and sub- sequently extended to include Russia, was eventually revealed or publicized as drawing boundaries in the Middle-East for the 20th century. The land in which Kurds were living was object of this division.
One of the reason why the Kurds did not fight for their own interests was the weakness of nationalistic feelings among them, while the other was lack of concensus among their leaders (emirs and pashas), which continued even after World War I and leading to the Kurds’ exclusion from interna- tional agreements. Consequently, four distinct Kurdish societies emerged in four different “nation-states”.
Nationalism is bound to the idea of a ‘land’ at first, and the people living in the same land are emotionally close to each other even though they do not know each other, which is determined as ‘imagined community’ by Benedict Anderson.
In this article the current situation of the Kurdish poli- tics and their “nationalism” are going to be discussed by comparing them to the situation in which Sykes- Picot agreement occurred with the recent happenings such as “postponing national congreess”, “liberating Shingal”, and “Kobane” fighting.
Keywords: Sykes-Picot, Kurds, nationalism, Kurdistan, Middle East.
* This article is based on a presentaion in Kurdish titled, “Ji sedsal berê heta niha: Hestên netewî û siyaseta Kurdan-From a Century ago to the Present Day: Nationalistic senses and Kurdish Politics”, presented in “The Kurdish Case and Sykes-Picot Agreement” conference held in Suleymaniya/KRG/Iraq, on 3-4th, May, 2016. I am very thankful to John Crofoot, a dearest friend, for his commenting and editing on the English editon of this article.