Kurdish Dr. Şükrü Mehmet (Sekban('s Relations with the British

He was born in Ergani (Diyarbakır) in 1881 as the son of Mülâzim-ileş (first lieutenant) Mehmet Ağa. Şükrü Mehmet completed his primary education in Ergani‐Maden and Hozat, his secondary education in Diyarbakır, and his high school education in Istanbul Çengelköy Military Medical School. He graduated from the Military Medical School in 1903 with the rank of captain. After completing his internship at Gülhane Hospital for one year, he was appointed as Dermatologist at Edirne Military Hospital. After working here for two years, he returned to his duty at Istanbul Medical School.

In 1908, II. One of the founders of the Kurdish Teavün and Progress Society, which was formed after the proclamation of the Constitutional Monarchy, Dr. Mehmet Şükrü was one of the leading defenders of the Kurdish movement at that time. At the same time, he is one of the most active supporters of the Kurdish Hevi Student Association, which was officially established in 1912 for the purpose of political Kurdishism, and which hosts mostly university students. He paid the rent of the building of the society in Istanbul Sirkeci for a while.

Dr. Şükrü Mehmet was a member of the board of directors of the Kurdish (Kurdistan) Teali Association, which was founded in 1918 under the presidency of Sayyid Abdulkadir. In this period, Seyyid Abdülkadir went to foreign embassies with Emin Ali Bedirhan and other members of the society, gave memoranda about the autonomy of the regions where Kurds lived, and constantly conveyed their demands on Kurdish rights. In this period, again seen as one of the most important and leading figures of the Kurdish movements, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet resigned from his duty at the Military Medical School in 1919 and went to Baghdad. However, after a short time, returning to Istanbul and continuing his Kurdish activities, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet went back to Baghdad due to the Treaty of Lausanne signed on July 24, 1923 as a result of the success of the National Struggle and continued his Kurdish studies there.

Dr. Şükrü Mehmet, in two letters he wrote on September 14 and December 18, 1923 during his stay in Beirut and published in Cairo, advocated that the Kurds should be given autonomy and that the Kurdish language should be the official language. In this period, he was also the head of the Baghdad branch of the Hoybun Committee, which was the representative of the Kurdish-Armenian alliance. Şükrü Mehmet insisted on the rights of the Kurds in his letter to the Society of Akva, and as a result, he convinced the world public that there was a Kurdish issue under the name of Kurdish rights, and started to be discussed in the international arena.

On the other hand, Dr. The most discussed work of Şükrü Mehmet throughout his life is the book titled "The Kurdish Question" (La Question Kurde des Problemes des Minorites) written in French in Paris in 1933. In the book, contrary to the case of Kurdishism that he defended before, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet is of the opinion that the Kurdish issue is used as a new trump card in the Middle East. He was in the position of a person who was criticized by the Kurdish people for these thoughts, and who, according to them, started to serve the official view as a "Kemalist Turkist" by other Kurdish people after the publication of his book. The reason for being exposed to such criticism; General amnesty came to the fore on the occasion of the tenth year of the Republic (1933). Dr. Şükrü Mehmet wanted to benefit from the general amnesty because he was not on the list of 150 people, which was excluded from the general amnesty to be made pursuant to the Treaty of Lausanne on July 24, 1923. However, unable to take advantage of it, Dr. In such an environment, it seems likely that Şükrü Mehmet will change his ideas because he hopes to return to Turkey, and for this reason, he will come to a defense as he stated in his book.

In 1938, the fifteenth anniversary of the Republic, amnesty was again on the agenda. While this amnesty was initially limited to the amnesty of those known as the 150 people who betrayed the country during the National Struggle, its scope was later expanded. The most important reason for the expansion of the amnesty is II. It is on the eve of World War II. The fact that such persons were exiled, fugitive or for whatever reason, and that they were prevented from working against Turkey, constituted an important reason for the amnesty. Benefiting from this amnesty law, he returned to Turkey from Baghdad in 1939. Şükrü Mehmet Sekban was kept under surveillance by the state until his death in 1960.

During and after World War I, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet has very close relations with the British intelligence in the Ottoman geography. Two letters found in the British archive clearly reveal these relations. This situation is explained by Andrew Ryan, who served as the second officer of the British occupation forces during the occupation years in Istanbul and was assigned to Morocco in August 1924, W.S. It is understood from the letters written to Edmonds and Miss Gertrude Bell. These two letters, written by Andrew Ryan, were written by Dr. Şükrü Mehmet told him in June and Aral of 1923. It was written on two letters he sent in the first months. In a way, the letters were written by Dr., who could not provide British support with the measures taken by both the Representative Committee and the Turkish Grand National Assembly during the National Struggle. These are the last efforts of Şükrü Mehmet.

The first letter was written personally or privately to Edmonds, the British intelligence officer in Istanbul, on 1 December 1924, signed from the British Consulate General's address (a‐R‐) in Rabat, Morocco. In this letter, Andrew Ryan primarily tries to acquit himself for the mistakes he has made in Istanbul in the past. He then explains why he wanted to be appointed from Istanbul. During this period, Andrew Ryan was not on good terms with the British Ambassador Ronald C. Lindsay, who was stationed in Istanbul. The reason for this is, in the words of Andrew Ryan; that he meddled in everything during his duty in Istanbul, and that the British Ambassador Lindsay of the time was uncomfortable with this. At the same time, it is stated that Andrew Ryan was disturbed by the fact that he could not help the Kurdish people who could not find what they hoped for after the Treaty of Lausanne was signed in the Turkish Grand National Assembly.

Andrew Ryan, who states that there are too many exiles in Istanbul at this time, says that the Ankara Government also hates him. He explains that the reason why the Turks hate him is his excessive enthusiasm for the Kurds for independence. However, within the framework of British policy, Andrew Ryan claims that he is doing his duty and working in favor of the Turks. The main purpose of writing the letter to Edmonds was to Dr. It seems that it is to ensure that Şükrü Mehmet and the Kurdish people who are in a difficult situation in this period are helped. This request, on the other hand, is not made directly, but on the pretext of the letter received from Dr. Şükrü Mehmet. It is also mentioned that the letters from him are interesting and that it would be important for them to be included in the British Embassy archive.

According to Andrew Ryan's letter; Dr. Şükrü Mehmet sent him two letters and a brochure. The first of these letters is dated 12 June 1923. In the letter, Dr. It is mentioned that Şükrü Mehmet approached the Ankara Government and apologized to him for this. During this period, the Ankara Government pursued the dissidents and exiled them. Dr. Şükrü Mehmet had good relations with the current administration for a while in order to get rid of exile. However, after the Lausanne Treaty was ratified by the Assembly, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet will have to go to Baghdad. Andrew Ryan, Dr. He states that Şükrü Mehmet did not consider his relations with the administration due to the fear of being sent into exile. However, he replied to this letter of Dr. Şükrü Mehmet by writing a letter so that he would not feel that she was not interested in him.

The second letter that Dr. Şükrü Mehmet sent to Andrew Ryan from Beirut is dated December 1923. In this letter, he asks Andrew Ryan to recommend him to the British authorities in Beirut. Along with this letter, he sent "What Do Kurds Want From Turks?" to Feyzi (Pirinçizade) Bey, Minister of Public Works of the Republic of Turkey and Deputy of Diyarbakır. He also sent his letter as a booklet. Andrew Ryan finds the content of this letter interesting and wishes it to be in the Embassy archive. He even forwarded this letter to many places he needed to go. Andrew Ryan, in his letter to Edmonds, during his years in Istanbul, Dr. He states that he knows and loves Şükrü Mehmet very well. Asking for his help, Dr. Şükrü states that he could not help Mehmet because he was away from Istanbul. According to Andrew Ryan or the British during this period; Dr. Şükrü Mehmet must be a very important person, as Edmonds in Istanbul and Miss Bell, the British regional intelligence officer in Baghdad, are given information to help.

If the letter sent to Edmonds is evaluated generally, the letter is written by Dr. It seems that it was written for information purposes about Şükrü Mehmet. Andrew Ryan does not seek direct help from Edmonds. In the letter, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet was introduced in a style that was not taken too seriously. E.g; “He is a fat and rather nasty disease (skin) and syphilis specialist. His type is weird.” is called. Again in the letter, Andrew Ryan used a sarcastic tone about the Kurds and Kurdistan politics. For example, Andrew Ryan, who stated in his letter that he worked hard for the establishment of an independent Kurdistan during the Sevres talks, mentions that if this had happened, it would have been named after a street. Noting that Kurdistan could not be established, he says that the noon sun on the Kurdistan flag sets before it rises.

Andrew Ryan, Dr. The second letter, dated December 2, 1924, written to help Şükrü Mehmet, was addressed to Miss Gertrude Bell, who was called "The Daughter of the Desert", "The Uncrowned Queen of Iraq" by the Arabs and was nicknamed "The Queen of the Desert" by the British intelligence. it has been removed. Miss Bell is one of the influential figures of the British policy and intelligence in the Iraq and Baghdad region during and after the First World War. Andrew Ryan is unsure whether his letter will reach Miss Bell. At this time, Miss is experiencing mental problems due to the problems in her private life and it is not known whether she is in Baghdad. Therefore, Andrew Ryan, whoever is in the hands of the British intelligence officer in Baghdad, whose letter he wrote falls into the hands of Dr. Şükrü wants to be helped to help Mehmet. In his letter, Andrew Ryan writes that he could not help him because he left Istanbul.

One sentence in the letter is remarkable: While asking Miss Bell for help, Andrew Ryan used a phrase such as "about two ordinary issues there (Baghdad)". One of the two issues that Andrew Ryan wrote is the requests of the local people who cooperated with the British in the Baghdad Region for help from the British. The number of such persons during this period must have been so large that it is probable that the expression of contempt was used as an ordinary subject. There is no information about whether this letter was received by Miss Bell or even if it did, Miss Bell helped Dr. Şükrü Mehmet. Miss Bell died in July 1926 due to problems in her private life. It is understood from the attempts that Dr. Şükrü Mehmet did not get much help from the British in the following periods and he wanted to benefit by believing the news of amnesty in Turkey in 1933.

Dr. The brochure attached to the second letter that Şükrü Mehmet sent to Andrew Ryan was sent from Beirut on 14 September 1923 to Feyzi (Pirinççioğlu) Bey, the Minister of Public Works of the Republic of Turkey and Diyarbakır Deputy. Its title is “What Do the Kurds Want from the Turks?” The letter/booklet consists of thirty-one pages. This letter was written in Ottoman Turkish in the form of a booklet rather than a letter. When the letter is sent or first written to Feyzi Bey, it is in the size of a normal letter. However; Although three months have passed, he has not received an answer from Fevzi Bey. It is possible that Dr. Şükrü Mehmet, who was angry at this situation, revised the letter and made it a booklet. This letter, which was brought to the size of a booklet, was published on 18 December 1923 by M.A. suppressed by At the end of the booklet, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet reproaches Feyzi Bey by referring him to the reader. That's why we call it a booklet.

This should be the copy that Dr. Şükrü Mehmet sent to Andrew Ryan and others. In the original of the booklet, it is clearly seen where additions were made. In the booklet, feelings and thoughts on Kurdishism and Kurdistan are expressed. At the same time, the letter has the feature of being written in the form of political propaganda. The expressions used are expressions that address a group rather than a single person. On the other hand, while this letter was initially private (to Feyzi Bey), it was later sent to prominent British politicians and intelligence officers of the time. This is evident in Andrew Ryan's letters. The letter also reflects the psychological state of Dr. Şükrü Mehmet at the time it was written. As we mentioned above, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet first went to Baghdad and then to Beirut. He wrote letters to his old friends from here. It is understood that he wrote this letter in anger when he did not receive an answer in return. Although he had sent three letters to Feyzi Bey before, he did not receive a reply. Indignant at this situation, he sent this letter by registered letter. In his letter, he talked about political issues after congratulating Feyzi Bey, who was re-assigned to the newly established government in Turkey during this period.

In the letter, it is seen that he tried to acquit himself before moving on to political issues. Stating that he was forced into politics after the Armistice of Mudros, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet states that the Ottoman Governments and Unionists were unfair to him and the Kurds. According to him, while the Unionists treated Arabs and Albanians moderately during the occupation period, they treated Kurds differently.

Again, by simplifying his involvement in the politics of Kurdishism, he argues that he entered this business to save Kurdistan, since the eastern provinces would be given to the Armenians. He even argues that the Defense of the Law Society and Mustafa Kemal supported him to strengthen this situation.

1. Dr. Şükrü Mehmet, who carried out all kinds of activities related to Kurdishism after the Second Constitutional Monarchy, followed the talks closely during the negotiations of the Treaty of Sevres and sent many letters to influence the delegates. It is understood from various sources that these letters were seriously influential. Again in the letter, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet presents himself as a Turkish supporter and gives some examples from the past to support this. For example, Istanbul He states that he participated in the meeting of the Vilâyât-ı Sitte (Eastern Provinces) Defense of Law Society under the chairmanship of İlyas Sami Bey, and shows İlyas Sami and Feyzi Bey as witnesses to this.

He also states that he did not accept the invitation of the Kurdish Teali Society during this period, and that he left once as a result of coercion. In another example, he uses the following statements to prove that he is not a traitor and asks Feyzi Bey not to believe it. According to his own statement; “… I can say that the best of Turkey's glory and majesty, its independence was complete. I am one of those who sincerely wish for progress and a complete population. When the Turks were taken into captivity with the "Mu'ahedesi of Sevres", to what extent could favz and necât be a maw'ud for the Islamic tradition? Maybe if we only had this political opinion, guidance, aim and action, it would suffice to prove that we were never the enemy of the Turks, and that we were never a treacherous nation and homeland with its true and true meaning. Please do not be convinced that we even make tawahhum, as these words will look at us with the treacherous homeland.”

In the continuation of the letter, he is praising the national movement and Mustafa Kemal. According to him, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet, who stated that he was uncomfortable with the fact that the places where the Kurds lived were handed over to the Armenians during the negotiations of the Treaty of Sèvres, tried to prevent this, and that he never wanted a Turkish-Kurdish conflict, and that no Kurdish community was among the groups against the national movement. argues that he did not. Stating that he knew Mustafa Kemal through his comrade Major Mustafa Celalettin Bey during the Anafartalar Wars, he expressed his thoughts on Mustafa Kemal with the following expressions. He states that he knew Mustafa Kemal during the Battles of Anafartalar, and that he had the most sincere sense of respect and appreciation for them, uninterruptedly, from that date until today. He states that he has confidence in his views and political courage as much as his military capabilities, and that he has hit all the hits in all his actions, apart from his stance on Kurdishism.

With these statements, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet asks Feyzi Bey for help. As it will be remembered, towards the end of 1923, a general amnesty was being carried out in Turkey. It will not be difficult to understand Dr. Şükrü Mehmet's use of such expressions. First of all, he was followed by Turkey for his separatist Kurdish movements in the past and for his close relations with British intelligence. For this reason, he went to Baghdad right after the Treaty of Lausanne was signed in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. This is also supported by the letter sent by Andrew Ryan, mentioned above, to Edmonds.

According to Andrew Ryan's statement, he apologizes to him for approaching Ankara. Andrew Ryan, expressing that he understands this situation, did not give him any answer. Thirteen and fourteen pages of the thirty-one-page letter written by Dr. Şükrü Mehmet consist of laudatory expressions for Feyzi Bey, the National Struggle and Mustafa Kemal. The remaining part focuses on the possible policies that Turkey can implement about the Kurds after 1923.

There is no original idea in the letter. The suggestions presented appear as a summary of the British policies that were implemented in the Ottoman period in the past and can be implemented in this period and in the future. If thought indirectly, with this letter, he gives information on the Kurdish policies that the British can implement in Turkey from now on, and in a way, gives a preliminary idea about the policies that the British will form on this issue. As a matter of fact, this is clearly seen in the policies of England on Turkey and the Kurds in the following periods. Indeed, Dr. The expressions Şükrü Mehmet used in his letter clearly confirm this. He explains his purpose in writing this letter or going through these troubles with the following words. “… It is to give an idea about the degree of sincerity and humility of ma’ruzat-i atiyem regarding the future Turkish and Kurdish relations.” As it can be understood from this sentence, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet states that his aim in enduring all these troubles is to explain his views on the future relationship of Turks and Kurds.

The part after half of the original fourteenth page of the letter constitutes the main subject. Dr. Şükrü Mehmet writes special things on the text, which is the main part of the letter, to whom he will send his letter. He sends the other part by adding it exactly. The main part or the main text of the letter includes propaganda and hopes for help from somewhere. In general, when the original of the letter is examined, it is clearly seen that Dr. Şükrü Mehmet has contradicted ideas from beginning to end and his ideas about Kurdishism are not settled. In fact, his ideas are in line with British policies on many issues. coincides with it exactly. This shows how close he was with the British.

In the main text of the letter, the possible policies that the Kurds may encounter in the future are emphasized. And this is "What do the Kurds want from the Turks?" Under the general title, he tried to give many sub-titles in the form of question and answer. First of all, what could be the policy of the Kurds or what should the Kurds want? He continues his letter by asking a general question. He tried to give general answers to these questions and, according to him, the Kurds will either be left to their own devices as they used to be, or be assimilated, exterminated or deported, or appropriate policies will be put forward by giving the Kurds their identity. Dr. According to Şükrü Mehmet, if the Kurds are left to their own devices, as in the past, they will not be beneficial to themselves or others. They will even be harmful. Because they would remain ignorant and poor, they would be a tool for all kinds of dangers.

As for the issue of being Turkified or assimilated; He strongly opposes this situation and gives examples from the past. Noting that he does not agree with Ziya Gökalp's ideas, he talks about the failure of the Germans' policies to assimilate the Poles. Stating that the Kurds, who were condemned to follow a policy other than getting along with the Turks, are not the same as before. Şükrü Mehmet states that he is in close contact with Europe and that he will be affected by any ideas that may come from there. He argues that this situation will also disturb the Turks.

Regarding the policy of forced representation and destruction, which he mentioned in his letter, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet hides his fears and appeals to the mercy of the Turks and Mustafa Kemal. He argues that if the Kurds are exterminated or deported, the already small population will disappear completely, and the country's economy will be bad since the Kurdish population of three million (according to Dr. Şükrü Mehmet Sekban) cannot produce. Stating that it would be wrong to settle immigrants in the Kurdish region, he states that no one will live in the mountainous region. He praises Mustafa Kemal for not resorting to this path: “… Turks, who, like Mustafa Kemal Pasha, have a truly merciful and determined guide, are always ready to give their lives for themselves, and at least they feel this unreasonable treatment of their Kurdish brothers, at least for their nationalism. out of respect, they will not see rava.”

Contradictory and contradictory statements are used in the letter regarding the granting of political rights to the Kurds. E.g; Dr. Şükrü Mehmet, who argues that a society cannot be civilized with a culture that it is foreign to, talks about protection or a federal structure in the continuation of his letter. According to him, he states that if the Kurds are given political rights and civilized, the Turks will benefit socially and economically. He supports this by giving examples of the Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood in the past and accepts that the Kurds are uncivilized and argues that the Turks will civilize them. He mentions that people who civilize themselves and lead in this regard will also be treated with respect. At the same time, stating that the Turks will solve the turmoil in the internal affairs of the Kurds, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet criticizes the Turkist policies implemented after the Constitutional Monarchy and deals with the issue with a very simple approach.

E.g; He asks why Albanians and Arabs were given freedom and not Kurds. In the final analysis, it is claimed why the Kurds were not given political rights with a jealous and childish attitude without evaluating the historical and the politics of the period very well. Dr. Şükrü Mehmet, who uses such expressions, suddenly defends different ideas contrary to his views in the continuation of the subject. E.g; He explains that the Kurds fought together with the Turks in the First World War and the War of Independence against the enemy and writes that the Kurdish politicians acted together with the Turks.

After the First World War, DrŞükrü Mehmet opposes the partitioning of the Kurdish-dominated areas to Turkey, Iran and Iraq. He mentions that because of this situation, it will be difficult for the Kurds to achieve their national unity. Although he opposes this situation, he approaches the issue differently by giving the example of Poland (Poland). According to him, if any part of the divided Kurdistan gains a political formation, this formation will bind the Kurds in the region to itself. Other Kurds who remain outside will also achieve political transformation without any effort. In the face of this situation, his preference is for the Kurds to be independent in only one region. He does not prefer to combine parts.

To explain this idea a little bit, this approach expressed by Dr. Şükrü Mehmet exactly coincides with the Kurdish policies that the Western imperialist powers are trying to implement in Turkey, Iraq and Syria today. This reveals how long-term British policies towards the region were formed. Likewise, Dr. Sukru, It is very clear how much he was in contact with the British and thus he acted as the local spokesperson of the British policies of the period. In the continuation of the letter, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet makes prophecies as if he saw a hundred years ahead. Dr. Şükrü Mehmet, who was very well educated by the British, asks the question of what the future administration of Kurdistan will be to the detriment of the Turks. He defends the federative structure by giving examples from his own period of this question. Taking into account the reaction of the Turks against this structure, it produces defense methods in its own way.

In his letter, he self-sacrificed, “… If the Turks oppose this, or if they say, we won our independence by shedding our blood. How do you make such demands when there is no compelling reason, when the Kurds do not have a force? In response, we say that independence is essentially a natural right. It is not given to be taken. Besides, we do not want to live separately from the Turks. Only entering the Turkish national community hasbe'l‐kader and hasbe'n‐nez hurts our national pride. Since it is not possible for us to develop in that tradition, we want to find a solution.”

There are interesting similarities between the policies or ideas expressed in the recent past, such as allowing the Kurds to use their mother tongue and establishing a federation system in the regions where Kurds live intensely, and the suggestions in Dr. Şükrü Mehmet's letter. As explained above, he has been a part of the Kurdish policy implemented by the western imperialist states. In this context, he frequently expresses his policies on the Kurdish language and federation designed by the western imperialist states in his letter. After the statements about the granting of political rights to the Kurds, he also uses contradictory statements about language, and he makes vulgar comments on this subject, saying "We will use our own language no matter what the Turks say". However, he says that they can accept a government that the Turks can accept in terms of the form of government.

Citing the political struggle of the Turks as an example in order to strengthen their statements, he argues that the Kurds will be successful just as the Turks were successful against the imperialist states. In fact, he gives examples of the powerful states and leaders of the period, and mentions that the power will one day be defeated. Dr. Sekban offers solutions for the granting of political rights to the Kurds and language, within the framework of the laws that the Turks can accept. He gives an example of the first article of the National Pact, regarding the granting of political and language rights. According to Sekban's letter, in the first article; “…the people, who are connected to each other by some religious and cultural ties and are composed of elements that are touched by the same purpose, and have a calm Ottoman and Muslim majority beyond and beyond the occupation line, do not accept any de facto or legal discrimination on the condition that they show mutual respect for their ethnic rights and social conditions.”

According to this article, he argues that the state accepts other elements other than Muslims as citizens, and at the same time undertakes to accept the rights of these elements. On the other hand, although Dr. Şükrü Mehmet was assigned a duty from the relevant article of the National Pact, this issue was further clarified with the definition of citizenship in the 1924 Constitution, and it was determined that the people of that place were authentic with Turkishness. Accordingly, it is said that everyone living in Turkey, regardless of religion or race, is Turkish. However, he enjoys all kinds of rights equally. Dr. Şükrü Mehmet addresses the twenty-second and twenty-third articles of the 1921 Constitution on political rights and the form of government. Based on this article, it proposes the unification of the regions where Kurds are concentrated, and demands that its implementation be carried out in accordance with the twenty-third article.

The original of the first article of the Misak-ı Milli is as follows. “… Within and outside of this armistice line, all of the Ottoman-Islamic mostly inhabited regions, which are full of mutual respect and self-sacrifice for each other in terms of religion, race and purpose, fully complying with their racial and social rights and environmental conditions, are truly and by default an indivisible whole.” The definition of citizenship in the 1924 Constitution is as follows. “In Turkey, everybody is called a "Turk" in terms of citizenship, regardless of religion or race. Anyone who comes from a Turkish father in Turkey or outside of Turkey, or who is born in Turkey from a foreign father who has settled in Turkey and resides in the country, and who formally seeks Turkish citizenship when he reaches the age of puberty, or is accepted to Turkish in accordance with the Citizenship Law, is Turkish.

He wants the administrator to be of Kurdish origin. He demands that his appointment and control be done by Ankara. Arguing that the political solution he proposes will also satisfy Turkish nationalists, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet says that according to Turkish nationalists, the inseparability of the Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood from the past is not valid. r. Stating that many governments tried to solve this issue in the past, but could not solve it, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet states that the weakness of national defense is not the same as in the past.

Starting from July 1927, Turkey has sought a solution to this situation by establishing general inspectorates throughout the country, primarily starting from the eastern provinces. The purpose of establishing General Inspectorates; Turkey aimed to realize total development, ensure internal security, control and administrative unity in the country. At the end of the letter, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet asks Feyzi Bey to convey his thoughts above to his other friends and colleagues. Later, he writes words of praise to Mustafa Kemal, saying that only he will realize these ideas. Dr. Şükrü Mehmet wrote the following statement as an appendix to the end of his letter. “Since three months have passed and no reply has yet appeared to this letter, I leave the verdict to the discretion and conscience of my judgment without saying anything else. Beirut 18 Law (November) 1923” As can be understood from this statement, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet had sent his letter in September 1923. Although three months have passed, he has not received any reply from Feyzi Bey. Because of this, he may have written such an article at the end of his letter, which he got angry and published in the form of a booklet.

As it will be remembered, at the time the letter was written, there were discussions on amnesty in Turkey. Dr. Şükrü Mehmet wanted to take advantage of this amnesty. For this reason, it is possible that Feyzi Bey spent laudatory eulogies on Mustafa Kemal and the administration of the period. However, unable to find what he hoped for or benefit from the general amnesty, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet may have lost this grade in this psychological atmosphere.

CONCLUSION

Although he introduced himself as a benevolent Kurd and also a sincere and loyal Turkish supporter, aiming to save the Kurdish population in Turkey from poverty and ignorance at the end of the last period of the Ottoman Empire and the National Struggle Period. The Kurdish activities of Şükrü Mehmet Sekban can be clearly understood from the letters he wrote and sent. Accordingly, its activities, II. It can be expressed in three periods as the Constitutional Monarchy, the National Struggle and the Republican period. II. Despite the secret British policies of the Kurds, which were controlled against Armenians and preferred to Armenians, their activities during the Constitutional period were efforts to raise awareness and education of the Kurds, operating together with Kurdish associations.

Its activities during the National Struggle were towards the establishment of an independent Kurdistan with the separatist Kurdish uprisings. In fact, it is seen that he conveyed his Kurdish wishes to the Western states in the Sevres negotiations. In the Republican period, it is understood from his own statements and Andrew Ryan's letters that he made an effort in line with the same idea until the Treaty of Lausanne and carried out these activities in coordination with the British Intelligence personnel. However, when he could not find what he was looking for in Lausanne, he followed a policy to reach an agreement with the Republic of Turkey for a while, and when he was not successful in this, it is seen that the Kurds attempted to explain racially and culturally that they were not a separate nation from the Turks. In this context, he sent "What Do Kurds Want From Turks?" to Feyzi Bey, Minister of Public Works of the Republic of Turkey and Deputy of Diyarbakir. Evaluation of the letter named was examined within the framework of their own writings.

In the letter, it is argued that the expectations of the newly established Republic of Turkey are important for both nations. After listing his thoughts and wishes in the letter, Sekban hoped that the person who could make his wishes was Fevzi Bey. The reason why Feyzi Bey was elected can be considered as the fact that he gained the trust of all Turks, that he was one of the main members of the cabinet as the most senior and most influential of the Kurdish deputies, and that he knew Dr. Şükrü Mehmet Sekban well due to the old friendship between them. He thought that the newly established Republic of Turkey would grant new rights to the Kurds and make concessions on the way to found a Kurdistan. However, the fact that his wishes were not respected in the course of time encouraged Dr. Şükrü Mehmet Sekban to write this letter.

The main reason for writing the letter is the idea of ​​bringing the wishes and desires of the Kurds to the agenda through a deputy. His purpose He wrote in many pages that if this issue came to the fore in the period of Mustafa Kemal Pasha, he could find a solution. However, Dr. Şükrü Mehmet Sekban could not understand that there was no room for separation and autonomy in the foundation of the young Turkish Republic, that everyone was not defined by a separate identity and status within the borders of the National Pact, and that everyone connected by citizenship bond was Turkish, above all the wishes and desires of the Westerners. It seems that he did not realize that he could not act with it.

Although he attributes his apparent reasons for writing his letter to the above reasons, it is clear that he was in a psychologically difficult situation due to the fact that he was living in Beirut during this period and was constantly followed by Turkey. is understood. This is clear from his letter and from Andrew Ryan's letters. Again, based on the three letters we examined, in addition to the above reasons, there have been contradictory transformations in the ideas of Şükrü Mehmet Sekban during each amnesty declaration period in order to be able to return to Turkey. In a way, he wrote mild letters or gave messages so that he could be forgiven or returned to Turkey.

Considering his ideas about the possible future policies of Kurdishism, which he expressed in his letter, it is in the form of a summary of the possible British policies of the period and the future, even though he puts it as his own. Such as allowing the Kurds, who have been tried to be dictated to Turkey in the recent past, to use their mother tongue and other political and cultural rights. Sekban, who was well-educated by the British, was initially a Kurdish nationalist, but in the following years, he was in a rush to save himself by constantly getting into a dilemma of ideas within the framework of British policies.