Kurdish thinkers in trouble? The Kurdish question in Turkey

At moments of historic rupture, silence is never neutral. It reveals who is prepared to assume responsibility and who retreats from it. Kurdish society is now facing such a moment. The dissolution of the PKK after fifty years marks the end of an era. Yet what comes next remains uncertain, undefined, and insufficiently debated.

From prison, Abdullah Ocalan has attempted to redirect the movement and adapt it to new political realities, even at the cost of its own existence. This suggests an awareness that the old paradigm of armed struggle has reached its limits. Yet the transformation has not been clearly communicated. No one truly knows where this path will lead. The result is confusion about political direction, about collective identity, and about the future itself.

Many Kurds view the end of armed struggle as a necessary step toward peace. Yet this cautious hope is overshadowed by deep mistrust. The growing proximity between Kurdish political actors and the Turkish state, a state that has denied Kurdish existence for more than a century, raises uncomfortable questions. Is this pragmatism or capitulation? A necessary compromise or a betrayal of historical sacrifice?

These questions divide Kurdish society. They expose a tension that remains unresolved, the tension between the desire for peace and the persistence of collective trauma.

At the same time, the regional context is undergoing profound transformation. Developments in Iran, together with shifting power structures across the Middle East, point toward the emergence of a new political order. Old certainties are eroding, new actors are gaining influence, and political frameworks are being redefined. For the Kurds, who live across several states, this moment carries both risk and opportunity. It demands strategic clarity.

And yet, precisely at this critical juncture, Kurdish intellectuals are largely absent from the debate.

Instead of offering orientation, many are engaged in internal disputes. Social media has become the primary arena of exchange, often dominated by polemics, personal attacks, and ideological rigidity. Serious, forward looking discussion is rare. The broader public, meanwhile, is left waiting for clarity and direction.

Have Kurdish intellectuals abandoned their responsibility to think?

A withdrawal that costs more than face

Historically, Kurdish intellectuals have been voices of resistance against repression, denial, and cultural erasure. But resistance alone is no longer sufficient. Today, the greater challenge lies within Kurdish society itself.

It requires confronting self imposed limitations, entrenched ideological dogmas, and the concentration of discourse in the hands of political movements. Those who question established narratives, whether the legacy of armed struggle, the dominance of particular organizations, or the absence of a long term strategy, often face marginalization. Criticism is treated as disloyalty. Debate is replaced by denunciation.

Such dynamics are not a sign of strength. They reveal insecurity and a fear of open dialogue. And fear, as history has repeatedly shown, undermines freedom, including internal freedom.

This is precisely the moment when intellectuals must step forward. Not as representatives of political factions, but as independent voices capable of initiating debate, challenging assumptions, and opening new perspectives.

The Kurdish question: Between myth, power, and possibility

The end of the PKK unsettles long held assumptions. Is armed struggle still a legitimate path? What can replace a centralized resistance movement? Can Kurdish identity be defined beyond the symbolic dominance of a single organization, toward pluralism, democracy, and cultural diversity?

And after more than a century of denial and repression, can there be any meaningful trust in Turkish state institutions?

These are uncomfortable but necessary questions.