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. Yet they remain largely unanswered. Many intellectuals have retreated into echo chambers or become entangled in rigid positional conflicts. In this vacuum, populism, cynicism, and political resignation begin to spread.

The Kurdish question in Turkey can no longer be reduced to a security issue. It has become a broader societal and cultural challenge. It concerns how a people defines itself in a fragmented world and how it formulates a vision of self determination beyond inherited narratives.

What is needed now are new concepts, new language, and new perspectives.

In short, new thinking.

The intellectual as cultural worker, not ideologue

The role of the intellectual must therefore be reconsidered. Jean Paul Sartre once described the intellectual as someone who must confront the tension between human ideals and social reality. Michel Foucault emphasized the responsibility to expose power relations and make alternatives visible.

In the Kurdish context, this means that intellectuals must move beyond their role as guardians of established narratives. They must become active participants in shaping the future. This requires independence from political structures and a willingness to engage critically with both external and internal power dynamics.

Kurdish society is diverse and marked by internal contradictions. This diversity is not a weakness but a potential source of strength. However, it can only become productive if differences are acknowledged and engaged constructively.

The intellectual should therefore act not as a judge but as a mediator, not as a partisan voice but as a facilitator of dialogue.

A new beginning through thinking, not through dogma

More than ever, Kurdish society needs an intellectual movement that is independent, forward looking, and resistant to the temptations of power. The current fragmentation of the intellectual sphere weakens public trust, undermines solidarity, and obstructs innovation.

What is required instead is the development of new political and social models. These may include decentralized forms of governance, cultural autonomy, inclusive education, and social justice. Such models must reconcile individual freedoms with collective responsibility and respond to the realities of a changing region.

In a Middle East that is being reshaped, from Iran to Syria and beyond, the Kurdish question will not disappear. It will evolve. Whether it becomes a source of renewed conflict or a framework for democratic innovation depends in part on the ability to think beyond inherited paradigms.

Kurds need more than reaction. They need vision.

Thinking as resistance

The title of this essay is deliberately provocative. It is not an accusation, but an invitation.

An invitation to rethink the role of the intellectual as a cultural actor in the service of freedom, as a bridge between theory and practice, and as a mediator between past experience and future possibility.

The Kurdish intelligentsia stands at a crossroads. It can continue to exhaust itself in internal rivalries, or it can open the space for a new and more courageous mode of thought.

If it fails to do so, others will define the future in its place.

Dr. Jan Ilhan Kizilhan is a psychologist, author and publisher, an expert in psychotraumatology, trauma, terror and war, transcultural psychiatry, psychotherapy and migration.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.