 AYDINLIK TÜRKİYE'NİN HABERCİSİ |
| |
|
||
|
AYDINLIK TÜRKİYE'NİN HABERCİSİ |
| |
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alive, well, and kicking
History is a reflection of things belonging to a common past for many peoples of the world, a moral device for unification. Not for us. For us, history is a reason for ideological divide which forces us to take sides, a constant topic of debate blurring and obscuring reality, even historical reality. Was the last Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed VI, a.k.a. Vahdettin, a coward who submitted himself and his crown to the invading British, a traitor who sold his country to foreign forces, or a brave man who sent his young general Mustafa Kemal to Anatolia to foment a popular uprising by handing him out a huge amount of his own money? If the person in question was from any other nation, historians would have given a definite answer as a result of an unbiased evaluation of historical documents and analyses. But not us, God forbid, no. We do not care whether we have oral testimonies or written documentation ready to use for us to come to a decision on him: The last sultan is a "traitor" for some, but an honest man for others. The same goes with the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923. The treaty was and still is an historically important document since it gave legitimacy to the newly established Turkish Republic. The Western powers gathered in Lausanne to determine the boundaries of the new republic and its working principles towards its own citizens. They did this by changing their previous intention of carving national homes for some peoples of the Ottoman Empire envisaged at the Treaty of Sevres. This change of heart did not come about easily, but was a result of arm wrestling between Western statesmen and nationalist leaders of the new republic. The diplomats participating in the meetings at Lausanne on Ankara's behalf had to give up some lands which were always claimed as integral to Turkish territory, in return for some vital concessions. So be it. The Turkish Republic has made giant strides ever since, and the Turkish public has become more mature in appraising the integrity of its founding fathers, and the hardships and sacrifices they assumed to achieve their goals. The Ottoman Empire is a thing of the past and not a single soul would like to live under any other type of state, but our beloved republic. Even the descendants of the Ottoman family today are diehard republicans as well. What all the fuss about Vahdettin and Lausanne, then? Why have the words of four-time Prime Minister Mr. Bulent Ecevit, to the effect that "Vahdettin was not a traitor," created so much interest and initiated a heated discussion? Furthermore, why has the Republicans People's Party (CHP) leader, Mr. Deniz Baykal, had to take side with those who claim that Vahdettin in fact betrayed the country? And why on earth did he have the temerity to commemorate July 24 as "Lausanne Day" for the first time after all those years? What is going on? Our history still hounds us, this is for sure. I myself believe that Vahdettin, for all his human failures, was a man of best intentions who sent himself into voluntary exile so that our people would have an independent future on their own. He was honest and died penniless. I also believe that the Treaty of Lausanne was the best we could have produced under the circumstances. Yes, these are my beliefs based on historical facts. We are unable to separate solid facts and the not-so-solid realm of belief. Proof for this has come as a contribution to the debate over Vahdettin from Mr. Suleyman Demirel, seven-time prime minister and ex-president of the Republic. Mr. Demirel, who once led a right-wing constituency with harsh words directed at some of the founding fathers of the Republic, came to the rescue of those who believe Vahdettin was a traitor. Although nobody raised the issue of Mustafa Kemal's integrity whatsoever, Mr. Demirel said that we would need the "reference of Ataturk" for at least another 100 years. "Reference of Ataturk," even if it is against historical facts? What does that mean? We are talking about history dating not more than 100 years, but we are talking as if we do not belong to it. History as an ideology and Turkish-style politics, all intertwined. It is Turkish-style politics, indeed. May I remind you that the politician who defended the integrity and honesty of the last Ottoman Sultan is Mr. Ecevit, and the politician who supported the idea of Vahdettin's treachery is Mr. Demirel. Mr. Ecevit is a leftist, and the left-wing in Turkey has traditionally had sour feelings towards the Ottomans, while Mr. Demirel is a rightist politician, and our right-wing politicians have been known to praise our Ottoman past. Mr. Ecevit is the longest-serving politician in Turkey, whose first public office was in 1957 as a deputy in Turkish Parliament on a CHP ticket. In all those years that he occupied important positions in Turkish politics, Mr. Ecevit never raised the possibility that our Ottoman history has been obscured by ideological biases, and he never praised Sultan Vahdettin. Mr. Demirel, for his part, has always given the impression that he has believed that the Turkish public is mature enough to appreciate democratic rights and freedoms, including the appraisal of history, and he has never shown any doubts about the integrity and honesty of historical figures from our past, including Ottoman sultans. Now, the two senior politicians have changed sides to confuse us. We are as divided as ever ideologically over our history, thanks to our senior politicians who let us know once more that they are alive, well and still kicking.
|
|
 |
|
|
Kültür | Spor | Yazarlar | Televizyon | Sağlık | Arşiv Bilişim | Dizi | Çocuk |
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED |
