'Ne Mutlu Türk'üm Diyene' in spite of those who cannot say 'Ne Mutlu Türk'üm Diyene'

Why is a part of the Turkish nation nowadays refraining from saying "I am Turkish" openly and with full conviction? I think we need to think about this as a nation, to question it. What has brought us to this point, what has made us put back bragging about our own nation in our own homeland, being confident in ourselves, and saying "I am Turkish"?

Many of you may remember. In 2018, the Eighth Chamber of the Council of State decided that "Our Oath cannot be abolished". The Ministry of National Education of this country objected to this decision. Thereupon, the Council of State Administrative Appeals Board cancelled the 8th Chamber's decision that the oath cannot be abolished. Thus, the "Oath", which had been recited in Turkish schools for decades, could no longer be recited in schools. Could it be that simple? In fact, our oath had not been recited in schools since 2013 until that day. Türk Eğitim-Sen had objected to this de facto situation. Thereupon, some of our citizens who really felt Turkish supported Türk-Eğitim-Sen. They filed individual lawsuits. As a result, the Eighth Chamber of the Council of State deemed it necessary to take the decision "Our Oath cannot be abolished" in 2018. In a sense, 'our oath', which had not been read de facto, had become 'read' again with the support of the judiciary. However, as I have just mentioned, the Ministry of National Education, which has the word 'Turk' in its name, muddied the waters, as it had the understanding that the oath should not be read, and the reading of the text was thus shelved. The annotation of three members of the Council of State's Administrative Case Chambers Board did not prevent the ban on the recitation of the text. 

I am one of those who do not find it right to ban the recitation of our oath, to ban its recitation in schools. I find it difficult to understand what is wrong with the recitation of our oath, which I see as a part of Turkish culture, which is recited from the morning of the first day of primary school and which has become a tradition. As in the case of our oath, is it right that any government can appoint judges who adopt its own political philosophy or world view to important positions and issue any decision it wants? 

Both the ancient Greek philosophers and the leaders of Islamic law have questioned this issue and felt the need to discuss it. In general, it is not considered wrong to take legal decisions in line with the demands of the government. This is possible, provided that the jurists who sign the legal decisions are not at the behest of those in power. Because if the man of law is the conscience of the righteous, not the powerful, he can take the most correct decision according to the law. As a sign of this, they say that the robes of the members of the judiciary are unbuttoned! 

From this point of view, I would like to return to the decision on our oath. More precisely, I would like to dwell on the banned text rather than this contradictory judicial decision. I am interested in who and why are disturbed by the text of our oath, the words of which were written in 1933 by Dr Reşit Galip, Minister of National Education of the single party period. Some people find it easy to accuse Reşit Galip with labels such as Jewish convert, some as racist, and some as Islamophobe. They supposedly want to discredit him in the eyes of our people with these labels and slanders. Somehow they forget the following. Reşit Galip was a son of a nation that had emerged from the war of liberation and created an independent state from the wreckage of the empire. At that time, all Turkish intellectuals, who were passionate about their homeland, were endeavouring to create a united people, a strong and monolithic nation, regardless of their ethnic origin in Anatolia. Ataturk, who founded the Republic of Turkey, had the same ideals, the same ideals, the same excitement in his Address to the Youth, the 10th Year Speech and the National Anthem. Our oath was the product of this common ideal, ideal and excitement.

For God's sake, I ask; how and why can a ministry with a national name oppose such a beautifully written text? Look at the text, please look at the expressions in it:

I am Turkish, I am true, I am hardworking. My principle is to protect my little ones, to respect my elders, to love my country and my nation more than myself. My ideal: to rise, to go forward. O Great Atatürk! I swear that I will walk on the path you have paved and the goal you have shown without stopping. May my existence be a gift to the Turkish existence. Blessed is he who calls himself a Turk! 

Now I ask you. Which of these words disturbs you? Saying "I am a Turk" or being righteous and hardworking? To rise, to go forward, to dedicate our existence to the Turkish existence, or to love Atatürk? Tell me which one? 

In this environment where it is a problem to say "I am a Turk", someone emerges in the name of religion and openly expresses his longing for a caliphate, regardless of the fact that he is a salaried imam of the Republic. Another with a tasselled fez spews his venom, "I wish the Greeks had been victorious!". One of the so-called intellectuals of the country, who has academic titles in front of her name, declares her open love for the Arab race by saying, "There is no race called Turk anyway." And today's prosecutors do not take action for any of these. Our politicians are essentially no different from our lawyers. Those who make it a principle to make politics by counting 36 ethnic groups one by one, somehow turn into hedgehogs with arrows when it comes to Turkishness. Isn't the name of this state Turkey, the name of the people living here the Turkish people, and the official language Turkish? 

The issue is not the text itself. It is not a verse; if necessary, the expressions in it can be changed and expressed in a more beautiful way. In fact, some additions have been made to the text of the oath over time, or different words have been added to make it a richer text. These are normal and I believe that such additions can be made provided that they remain faithful to the original meaning. However, the spirit of the oath must be preserved. Let alone our oath, it seems to me that the spirit of Turkishness that we carry within us, which constitutes our Turkish identity, is also decaying. It is as if someone has declared war on the Turks and Atatürk, who are the true owners of this homeland and Anatolian lands. And they prefer to do this by circumventing the law and distorting the law. What kind of a political understanding is this? It is not only our oath that is banned. Atatürk's silhouettes on state medals and emblems have also been removed. And with the decision of the Council of State. I won't say anything more. Let the keys of my keyboard not be the victim of my anger. Because I have something to write about tomorrow. But I want it to be known that those who are doing this are doing it out of spite. They want to shelve the deep-rooted practices of this century-old Republic of Turkey. For this, they try every means, especially the law. If there is no law, they even pass laws. As long as the deep-rooted politics of the Republic and good practices, including our oath, disappear. As it is written in the text of our oath, as I recited it with pride and pride when I went to school as a child, I continue to shout it today as a young man with grey hair: "Happy to be a Turk! You may not be happy to say this. I, on the other hand, am very happy, and I will continue to be happy as long as my breath lasts.

Stay with respectful love