ANKARA - Asserting that not only the thought, but also the life of Kaypakkaya should be studied, his comrade Muzaffer Oruçoğlu tells his understanding of life: "I saw this life closely. What is that life? First, it is the simplicity. Second, it is the avoidance from the urge to gain property. Third, it is solidarity."
As one of the revolutionary leaders of Turkey, İbrahim Kaypakkaya has analyzed a number of questions, which went beyond the thoughts of 68 generation and have kept their up-to-dateness since then. Kaypakkaya, who exceeded the limits of the official history with his
approach to the Kurdish and Armenian question, opposed both to the state and the progressive movements of his era. Communist Party of Turkey-Marxist-Lenninist (TKP-ML) and The Salvation Army of the Workers and Peasants (TİKKO) founder Kaypakkaya held organizational activities through Malatya, Dersim and Antep. On January 24 1973, he was caught as a result of "denunciation". Kaypakkaya, who was forced to walk in the snow bare foot as he was wounded, was taken to Diyarbakır Prison and killed by torture. Two days after his interrogation on May 16 1973, his deceased body was handed over to his father, disjoined... Kaypakkaya went down in history as the one who "sets his heart on not to break the promises he made to keep the secrets" regarding any information that the state tortured him for.
According to his comrade Muzaffer Oruçoğlu, Kaypakkaya is still alive as the questions his analyzed still remain and his genuine stand among the revolutionary movement of Turkey is still fresh. In the 47th anniversary of his murder by torture, Muzaffer Oruçoğlu told the story of Kaypakkaya and the actuality he represents.
• The actuality of İbrahim Kaypakkaya kept his genuine position among the history of the revolutionary movement of Turkey. However, we see an oppression on him both from the side of the state and the other parties in the struggle. How do you evaluate this as his comrade?
There are many reasons for such oppression. First of all, it is the genealogy of his thoughts, what he defended. It is the question of his approach to Turkish War of Independence, to the history of the Republic, to the Kurdish and Armenian question. So in general the question is his world view and his approach to the future of the humanity. In the era of Kaypakkaya, the people who were analyzing the the history of the War of Independence did not tell that it was the grande Turkish bourgeoisie and landlords who led the war, but Kaypakkaya did. Furthermore, he told this as in the following, they were the new Turkish bourgeoisie who got even bigger with the properties and the goods of the Armenian and the Roman and the land barons who supported them. He told that Müdafaa-i Hukuk Organization (Countrywide Resistance Organization) Kuva-yi Milliye is Circassian Ethem and Şahin Bey and Sütçü İmam. These are seperate people's movements all around Anatolia and Kurdistan. Kuva-yi Milliye was of course could not be kept under control; by the forced disciplinization of Circassian Ethem and the gangs ruled by him Kuva-yi Milliye was designed out.
Then Müdafaa-i Hukuk seized the problem. Kaypakkaya did not called Kuva-yi Milliye as "grand bourgeoisie", rather called them as "national bourgeoisie". He mentioned the policies of Mustafa Kemal movement regarding the Armenian and the Roman and the Kurdish during the years of war. He said that "a policy of reconciliation with the British" was pursued. What else did he (by Mustafa Kemal) do during the years of war? He had Mustafa Suphi and his comrades drowned in the Black Sea. He closed People's Communion Party and he had Circassian Ethem shot from his back when he was fighting in the war with Greeks. He sent Bekir Sami to the Conferance of London to share the message that: "We are not as close friends with the Soviets as you think so, we want to negotiate with you." These thoughts that I simply draw the frame for, were regarded by the state being in the first place and by the Kemalist forces and the forces who felt sympathy for Kemalizm as quite left and as if he was denying the War of Independence.
On top of that, Kaypakkaya also analyzed the history of the Republic and he drew attention to the Armenian Genocide. He told this in his writings: "In our history, there is not only Armenian genocide, but also many other genocides." He divided Armenian genocide to two parts, as 1915 and as 1920, these are stated in his writing. Of course I am aware of what he actually discussed bout the many details in his thought regarding this topic, which are not particularly recorded in his writings, but I am always refer to his writings to address where people can find these thoughts in written form.
• How did he set forth the problem, which you mention as the "Kurdistan question"?
First, he took up his position regarding the Kurdish rebellions, Sheykh Said being in the first place. In those times, a part of the Turkish left, was telling that Kurdistan was not a nation. They were saying that Kurdistan did not complete its nationalization process by 68-69-70s. İbrahim opposed to this idea as he was talking about how Kurdistan is a nation and it has the right to determine their own destiny, so they have the right to separate themselves and found a state, these can be found in his writings. His attitude towards the Kurdish rebellions differentiated his perspective quite distinctively from the understanding of the organizations of the 68 movements of those times. He emphasized this strictly: any rebellion by the oppressed nations against the oppressor nations are democratic by principle whether it is led by the working class or the poor peasants or the landlords or the sheiks; because the oppressed nation has the desire to achieve its own destiny by its own via the rebellion. Doğan Avcıoğlu, İlhan Selçuk, Mihri Belli, Hikmet Kıvılcımlı, Dev-Genç and all this front was of course opposed when it was about this discussion as this front evaluated the Kurdish rebellions, including Sheikh Said rebellion as "reactions and pro-sharia".
• What was the significant reference point in these evaluations of Kaypakkaya?
What was important for İbo was that a nation rises up and demands their national rights and that this rising up is democratic by principle. Of course, in his evaluations of the Kurdish question he did not only find state against him, but also the revolutionary movements of Turkey as the revolutionary movements of Turkey ignored him. As a matter of fact, when they made films about Deniz Gezmiş, they expanded the extent until Erdal Eren, but Ibo was not included. Even the name of the İbo was excluded.
• Why was Kaypakkaya excluded?
Because he throw a stone to the glass house. He also stoned the views of the left, including TKP (Communist Party of Turkey). That is why the state, the system and the Turkish left set him aside. Because this front did not accept the idea that Kemalist movements was a military-fascist dictatorship in their evaluations of the Republic. According to İbo, Kemalist movement turned out to be the dominant theory, which crushed the unions and the class movements, as well as closing down all the organizations and it had already pushed down the movements of the Kurdish nation with blood.
• How did Kaypakkaya explain that dominant theory?
"One Turk is the substitude of the whole world", "How happy is the one says I am turk", "All the languages and the history of the world derived from the Turkish language and history." That is the the Sun Language Theory, the theory of history in connection with this understanding and monism. A system that is first built upon the principle of being Turkish and secondly upon being Sunni Muslim. This is also related to the history. Ottoman was breaking into pieces since the Vienna defeat. What was the last link of this disjunction? The disjunction of Anatolia. This seemed as a matter of "to be or not to be". Therefore, they have inclined to the understanding that what divides us was the diversity and they said that so we should disable this diversity with a cement that can stick us together and that cement was the identity of Turkishness and Hanafism. What happened then was this: So the Kurdish became the Turkish as all the various languages and cultures who lived in Anatolia had turned in to a part of the Turkish language and culture. The stand of İbrahim was exactly a stand against such an understanding and that was dangerous. That caused İbrahim to die.
• Then why is the name of İbrahim Kaypakkaya is still alive?
Because these questions still remain unsolved. Why is Marx alive? Because when we examine the life on earth, the questions and his proposals of solution still seem contemporary. The oppressors, the oppressed, working class and the bourgeoisie etc. Marx's view of war, view of human, view of future, his view in general toward the sphere of existence lives. Why does it live? Because the precedence yells his name. The precedence say it loud and clear: "I cannot go on like this. You showed the alternative solutions. Where are you? I cannot go on like this." That is the reason why Marx, Lenin, the ideal of socialism still lives. That is also the reason why İbo still lives, but not only this as his view of socialism also differs.
• How did his view of socialism differ?
The impact of Chinese revolution was quite inspirational for İbo which I can summarize as the idea that you took the power, but you can get corrupted, then people have the right to take you down. Where did this understanding result? This resulted in his criticism of Soviet Union. He called the Soviet Union imperialist ans state capitalism. When he put these ideas this way, he opposed to the Turkish left as a whole. Of course, these line of thought can now be re-evaluated and analyzed, but this is not an easy task to do. There are major questions unsolved.
• Considering the contemporary Turkey of 2020, how does such a critique of Soviet Revolution and the national and class question relate to each other in the thought of Kaypakkaya?
He used to evaluate the main solution of the Kurdish question together with the solution of the class question. If he had lived, he would be closely interested in this connection. Kurds have been giving a war, a deadly war since 1984. This war caused great losses, caused the young from the both sides to die, the villages burned and the nature was damages and the cities collapsed. The psychological world of many humans were also destroyed. There are a great deal of people who got into the point of madness.
The state and the society, who are conditioned by the state mind, have been telling this particular phrase until the war: "Thanks to God, we are all Turks". Isn't this right? Now, what do they say? "Yes, you are Kurds, and yes, we are Turks, you are our brothers and sisters, we have been living together for thousands of years, let us live together, but you do not have rights regarding your Kurdish national rights", they say. After all those wars and apocalypse, they say this. What does it show? It show the mentality of the Turkish state. Stalin had a saying that "Turks are the champions of the national cruelty." After all that that has passed, you say this: "Yes, you are Kurd and you are my fellow, I cannot live without you, but you do not have your rights." What is that right? The right to got separated. Marriage is a metaphor for such a relationship, but a forced marriage in which you do not have the right to get divorced; you do not have a right to build a separate life. IT says this to the slave, to the colony. Therefore, the colony is somehow a forced marriage.
Their problem is the problem of market. The market of Kurdistan. What is a market? It is not only a place where you sell tomatoes. It is the labor and the raw material and the resources and the wealth of Kurdistan. This is the marker. Their main concern is to dominate this market and not the Turkish language or the Turkish culture in fact. The profit! Their concern is what they earn for their won banks and for their own capital. This is the core of this issue. This is the power İbo still embodies. What was it he used to say, do you know? "National question is the class question in essence." This is actually Lenin's view, but the Turkish left seem to left these views for quite some time. National question is a question of market in essence. He used to say that the oppressor nation confiscates the market of the oppressed nation. Moreover, he added to this view that the bourgeoisie and the land lords of the oppressed nation also demands to be the master of their own market. However, when the movement of the oppressed nation is led by the oppressed classes, by the working class, then the situation changes.
The working class does not care about the market dominance, but its main concern is the salvation of humanity and the nature. The question of whether the national question is a question of market or the struggle against imperialism was mainly discussed in many journals through 70s. All the leftist front opposing İbo told that it was the latter as İbo defended the first as we all together asked with him, what is the economic essence of the national question? Who opposes the Kurdish, only the imperialism? Who opposes the Kurds mainly and primarily are the forces of dominant Turkish classes and the Turkish state. When you put forward the Kurdistan question as a question of struggle against imperialism, then you leave the real power against the Kurdish into the shades and that power does what it always does. It did it in Koçgiri, it did to Sheykh Said, it did in Ağrı, in Zilan, in Dersim, finally, look at what it did in the cities...
• What is the legacy of the life of Kaypakkaya, can you tell us more about your own witnessing of his understanding of life?
His line of thought keeps the life of İbo up-to-date, but no ones lives forever neither does not the earth itself. So, what are we supposed to do? We try to live as dignified and free as we can. We hear the thoughts of İbo, good, but not enough; we should also study his life. That life lies behind those thoughts. I saw that life practically and so closely. Our friendship of 7 years showed me that life. What is that life? First, it is the simplicity. Second, it is the avoidance from the urge to gain property. Third, it is solidarity. It the state of being, having nothing but the essentials. Most importantly, it is the continuous search for wisdom. The knowledge in your mind, the fire of that knowledge, is the measure of your ability to change the life. This is not just about reading political books; it is the literature, the poetry, the philosophy, the history. This is how you change your environment, so that your environment also changes you. This is not only a matter of seeing the revolution or not, whether you become a revolutionary or not; this is a matter of qualified human, qualified and free life. This is essential for any being that calls themselves human.
• We know that he used to Beijing Radio and read articles from Beijing Review. Looking back to 67-68 through 2020, those years seem to be the times that you had so limited sources, yet there is such an international interest and curiosity. How was such a personality to reach and research the Chinese revolution?
The translations began after 66, both from Soviets and China. İbrahim used to listen 68-69, I was also in my village following the cultural revolution in 66. I was writing notes and articles over the revolution and I was feeling like I was a part of that revolution. It gave me the joy of living in the world with the rest of the world. Such an impressive revolution it was. It took our minds away. We did not only listen to Beijing Radio, but also the Moscow and the American radio as well as the national radio as well to follow the events. We were using the translations of Garbis Altınoğlu and Nail Satlıgan. We mostly use his translations to read about the Communist Party of India and
Naxalbari uprising. These were our main topics of interest.
• So, how was his personal characteristics, how was he as a person, as a friend, as a debater, as an intellectual?
He was... He was reckless; he used to work like he was an ordinary runner, he used to go in and out everywhere. He was an enthusiastic debater, but whenever the debate was over, he used to say "I do not have time to discuss this one more time". He was a good listener, but he was stubborn, he was stubborn to defend his ideas. I am flexible, I can say that you may be right, let's see, it is possible that you are right even though I do not think the same way; so some of our friends used to call me 'opportunist" always finding a middle way. (Oruçoğlu smiles in these parts of his narration.) Ibo was not like that, he was all about saying no. He was insistent on what he defended. Such an insistence. However, when he was in Vartinik... (A momnet of silence, Oruçoğlu's eyes filled with tears, he stares in to the past and then he continues to tell)
In Vartinik, he had a pair of shoes, made of black rubber, the size of which was bigger than his own feet. He had such in instict to feel the necessity and gives what he has or wears to his comrades at that moment of need. Take for instance the environment he lived in. We used to live in hovels or caves or in the holes of the big rocks. He was sensitive about the cleanness and tidiness. He used to tell us to keep the caves tidy and clean. I was saying, "What cleanness, let it go, this is a cave." We had a canister that we used to poor water and put thee in it. We also had these tin cannes that we took from the Nazimiye garbage, we also took them. We were using these tin cans as teacups. So in one corner stand the bread and skim-milk cheese, on the other stand the books and the cans. He used to tell us, "We should clean up this place" and I used to say "What is your problem? Is this a home? Let the objects free." (His eyes filled with tears and he smiles at the same time here) He used to reply to me, "No, we should clean this place". And we go to a hovel and again he goes like "We should organize this place in an order." In 7 years, there are many things that I witnessed and collected in my bag beyond any doubt, but these are the ones, which pour out from my bag for now.
• From the university years to the mountains, there is a guerilla period as well. How was he used to read in a cave, for example?
So when we are in a cave, let us say, we light a fire, a friend holds the book closer to the fire and he used to read it out loud so that we could all hear. Of course, it is not just that, but we also used to make educational meetings. İbrahim was always used to say "Read something before you come to the discussion, at least think a little bit, reflect on your weaknesses and strengths and the future." His culture of discussion was sophisticated and deep. He earned his theoretical formation also through the dialogue and discussion, not just the reading. He always read and discussed.
His main target was to prepare his Defense, not just a couple of pages, but a book. We had an understanding of defense as a book, via the history, via the politics. He had this as a main concern, to stand before the world and before the court and defend his theory. That is also one of the reasons he got killed. Yaşar Değerli said this out loud, a friend in the next cell when he was threated by Yaşar Değerli heard what he said when he says: "So you call Atatürk a fascist, and call him as the representative of the grand Turkish bourgeoisie, at the same time you will defend that the Kurdish has the right to declare their own destiny and defend seperatism and you will talk about the Armenian slaughter and you will not give a statement to me? I will kill you with my bare hands." He says exactly this: "I will kill you with my bare hands".
In the prison, we had a division of topic for his defense as we were planning to write to whole book part by part after his death. I took the part of the history of the working class of Turkey. Another friend took the part of the socio-economic structure of Turkey. Our idea was to write all the parts separately in prisons and then to collect these notes all together as a book to defend in the court. This was our understanding of defend. However, they did not let us do that, of course.
• As a final question, we would like to ask about yourself. You have become one of the leaders of this revolutionary movement, you have a personal history of 13 years of prison, you have a story of exile later on, then a story of becoming a expurgatory writer. How would you tell your own story?
I came to the Çapa Teacher School from Rize Teacher School. İbo came from Hasanoğlan. I had two main areas of interest, one of them was the classics in the school library, the Western classics, especially the novels; the second was to paint in the atelier of the school. My main goal when I was in Rize was as follows: to graduate as a teacher, get marry with a beautiful teacher, to go to a village and live there with her, both teaching and writing my novels and painting my portrayals. I had a Fakir Baykurt effect on me back then.
I met with İbrahim in Çapa Teacher School. I began to write a novel in my first semester there, I was telling the story of an incident that had occured in our village. Our literature teacher used to come down to the library, to talk me into to stop writing and attend the classes telling me "Stop this novel, attend your classes, or you will fail". So I finished the novel, it was arund 500 pages, I wrote it in one year. I had no friend. I came to the school in 66, through 66 and 67 I was always writing, both poetry and stories, also a novel, but I could not publich them, because they told me to bring the trype-written prints, but how could I find a typewriter? So those remained unpublished. Then 68 started, I joined in 68. There were clashes in the school; these clashes took my soul by the storm. My poems were ruined. After the 68 period, I became a professional (revolutionary) as we were dismissed from the school with İbo.
• Why were you dismissed?
On the grounds that we built the Çapa branch of the Federation of the Thought Clubs and we also published a leaflet against the
American 6th fleet. I was also involved in the Değirmeyköy Village occupation later on, I was caught there. They jailed me in 1969 and then I was out, but then again in 1970, I was caught again. I was imprisoned in Keşan and Edirne prisons around 3 and a half months. Then there was the Coup d'Etat. My field of organization was the villages. I used to take İbo with me to the village I was working, we would wander around together. My zone was Thrace. Then we got caught, three friends all together. They let the other, but kept me for a while.
We were guessing that the coup coming. After the coup, we dispersed around Dersim, Siverek, Malatya, Antep, all those places. I carried out my activities in Siverek for a year. I was staying in a country cottage. It was like a kennel. We were helding educational meetings, collecting the young people of Siverek altogether. There was also Mehmet Uzun among those youngsters; he was brilliant and reading the most inside all. When I went to Sweden, he was living in a forest and we commemorated those days together.
So, the year 1971, around May-June. We went to small village in Viranşehir. The village was horrible! No water, a small lake that he cows and the people were using simultaneously. They took me to a house together with the lady landlord, who were helping me to hide in the village. There were many women with tattoos, looking so much older than they actually were, giving me the uninspired looks in their eyes. The women were aligned one by one like prayer beads, as they entered the house; they were kissing the feet of the lady landlord. The males and the youngsters kissed her hands. As she introduced my as a son of some sheykh, they tried to kiss my hands too, but the lady landlord knew that I would never allow that. So, she told them "He is a literate boy, he saw the university education, he would not like to make his hands kissed". I stayed in that village for about a month. However, the conditions were horrible. Then I returned to Siverek. I was finding the cadre for the movement as well as organizing the educational meetings. Youngs of the Siverek were coming, some of them were afraid as they were thinking us as the anarchists in their village and the military regime would raid their region because of us.
On the other hand, we popularized the educational meetings. Then we raided the house of a moneylender, but when the women begged us to stop us, we did not to anything and returned back. We were writing on the walls of the streets, these writing on the wall were quite effective. These activities caused an enlightment in that region. Then The Diyarbakır Command of the State og Siege came for a general search. Then I came to Dersim. The story in Dersim is quite long; it is the period of caves. I had my specific caves of my own, I wrote their stories. So I spent a year there. Then the Vartinik raid. I survived Vartinik raid, only because I jumped off a cliff. My face was like frozen due to the cold, my feet swelled. I went to Mazgirt, this was the region I knew the most. Then I came to İstanbul where I was caught. This is when my 13 years of prison life began. The part of the story where I write my novels and poetry or I paint is another story; this belongs both to the prison period and post-prison period. I have told my story dispersedly to cut it short. Therefore, this is my adventure...
• Thank you so much. It was both an honor and joy listening to you. It was also sorrowful and thought provoking. Most of all, it was hope inspiring...
I send my regards and hug you all...
MA / Eylül Deniz Yaşar