Did Sheikh Said capture Diyarbakır? What is happening there?

Sheikh Said.

He was a herd owner. He had hundreds of animals.

He was from the Palu district of Elazığ. Being one of the leading figures of the Naqshbandi order, he used his status as a “Sheikh” and his tribal influence to easily acquire thousands of animals. However, when he could not find enough pasture and grazing land in Palu, he went to the Hınıs region to graze his animals. It was possible to find sufficient pasture and grazing land there.

He began to descend to the southern regions to sell his livestock by grazing them in these pastures. He traveled to Aleppo in particular quite often. Thanks to this animal trade, he met with Kurdish revolutionaries and supporters of the Caliphate, especially in Aleppo.

He got to know them.

In his memoirs, German Major Hans Guhr, who served as the 1st Division Commander in the region on the Caucasus Front in 1916, stated that he knew Sheikh Said, but that he was ordinary and not very intelligent. (Source: Retired Major General Hans Guhr, “Shoulder to Shoulder with the Turks from Anatolia to Palestine,” Türkiye İş Bankası Publications)

As can be understood from Hans Guhr’s statement, Sheikh Said did not have the capability to carry out an uprising.

There was someone or some people behind him. He had been placed at the head of a planned rebellion.

So, who planned it and who was behind it?

The Treaty of Lausanne had just been signed and had become a foundation for Turkey’s foreign policy. However, not all problems in foreign policy had been solved; issues such as Mosul, the population exchange, and the Ottoman external debts were being attempted to be resolved through negotiations. The Turkish-British Conference convened in Istanbul to resolve the Mosul issue yielded no results, and the matter was referred to the League of Nations, the United Nations of that day.

The case centered on determining which side the people of Mosul preferred. Britain had begun preparations for this and was trying to force proof that the people of Mosul did not want Turkey. On the other hand, it was trying to create problems within Turkey and show Turkey to both the international public and the League of Nations as a country that could not solve its own internal problems. If it could incite a Kurdish rebellion within the country, it would also create negative public opinion among the Kurds in Mosul and put Turkey in the position of an “unwanted country.” Thus, it would become difficult for the United Nations to grant Mosul to Turkey.

Furthermore, with this plan, Turkey’s hand would be weakened on the unresolved issues of Ottoman Debts and the Population Exchange, and the East would turn into a bleeding wound for Turkey.

Apart from this, the Society for the Rise of Kurdistan (Kürt Teali Cemiyeti), which was established while the Ottoman Empire was collapsing, was also calculating the establishment of a Kurdish state in the region under British protection.

That was the plan.

However, it was difficult for them to spread the Kurdish rebellion to the grassroots. Since the Kurds who fled from Russian and Armenian attacks during World War I received mercy and help from the Turkish villages where they took refuge, it was quite difficult to make the people of that region rebel against the Turkish State.

Moreover, Turks and Kurds had been living like brothers, as if they were flesh and bone, for centuries. In that case, only one option remained, and that was to incite the people to rebellion through sheikhs and religious leaders. Therefore, the British could not have found anyone more suitable than Sheikh Said to put this plan into action.

As Hans Guhr said, he had to be someone who was not intelligent, ordinary, and who could easily deceive the public from a religious perspective.

The button was pressed for this purpose.

Sheikh Said was chosen and brought forward at such a time. Sheikh Said and his armed men raided the Genç district of Bingöl province on February 16 and took the governor and some civil servants hostage. He issued a manifesto calling on the people to rise up in the name of the Islamic religion. In the manifesto he published, he used the title “Emir’ül Mücahidin Muhammed Said El-Nakşibendi” (Commander of the Mujahideen, Muhammad Said Al-Naqshbandi) with a seal meaning 'leader of those who fight for the sake of religion.' He called on everyone to fight in the name of religion against the existing regime. He declared the current government and regime “godless” and called the people to jihad.

Although it initially appeared to be a rebellion in the name of Religion/Islam, it later evolved into a Kurdish separatist movement, which was its true purpose.

Taking the Mistan, Botan, and Mıhellemi tribes with them, he marched on Diyarbakır via Bingöl with the forces he gathered. He captured Maden, Siverek, and Ergani. Another branch of the rebellion erupted in Varto, Muş. Furthermore, cold winter conditions were hindering the suppression of the rebellion.

The rebellion could not be suppressed.

Sheikh Said was not satisfied with this; he appointed a Front Commander for the surrounding provinces, especially Elazığ. The self-proclaimed commander of Elazığ, Sheikh Sharif, entered Elazığ with his men. He took control of the city. And he looted Elazığ.

Encouraged by these events, Sheikh Said besieged Diyarbakır in early March with a force of approximately 10,000 people. Although the Turkish military defended the city, Sheikh Said’s men managed to enter the city.

The situation was very serious.

President Mustafa Kemal Atatürk urgently summoned İsmet İnönü, who was in Heybeliada due to illness, to Ankara. He told İsmet Pasha that “a serious British-backed uprising had begun in the East under the pretext that religion was being lost.” Atatürk explained the situation to İsmet Pasha, but the Prime Minister was Ali Fethi Okyar.

However, Ali Fethi Bey did not see the event as a rebellion and believed it could be stopped with martial law. He did not attach importance to the seriousness of the problem. Furthermore, he had included the clause “Our party is respectful of religious thoughts and beliefs” in the program of the party he founded, sending a message that encouraged political Islamists.

What did this sentence mean? Were other parties disrespectful?

This is exactly why religious uprisings were not taken seriously, and such encouraging speeches and messages from governments mobilized the rebels.

With the support of foreigners, he ignited the rebellions.

However, Mustafa Kemal did not come from the political arena. He came from the battlefields. He knew that the most important factor that destroyed the Ottoman Empire was reactionary rebellions, and he would go after the rebellion without compromise with the following words that shed light even on today:

“...Could good intentions be expected from those who took the principle of 'The party is respectful of religious thoughts and beliefs' as a banner? Was this banner not the banner carried by those who have been trying to gain special interests for centuries by deceiving the ignorant, the bigoted, and those who believe in superstitions? Had the Turkish nation not been dragged for centuries into endless disasters, into filthy swamps from which great sacrifices were necessary to escape, always by being shown this banner?”

As Mustafa Kemal predicted, when events escalated rapidly, he demanded the resignation of Prime Minister Ali Fethi Bey. And on March 3, he authorized İsmet Pasha to form the government. One day later, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) passed the Law on the Maintenance of Order (Takrir-i Sükun Kanunu), granting the government emergency powers. It was decided to establish Independence Tribunals in Ankara and Diyarbakır.

Street fighting was immediately initiated against the forces of Sheikh Said, who besieged and entered Diyarbakır, and they were repelled after fierce clashes. The retreating Sheikh Said and his forces were pursued, and most of them were captured. The ringleaders and Sheikh Said were caught while trying to flee to Iran.

And they were tried in the Independence Tribunals and hanged.

In the end,

Mosul and Kirkuk, which were at the League of Nations (United Nations), were lost. We could not do anything. Because we could only suppress our internal rebellion. We could not unite with the Southeast and march on Mosul like we did with Hatay.

A British-collaborating reactionary rebellion prevented us from taking our ancestral homeland of Mosul and Kirkuk.

They say, “We gave away Mosul and Kirkuk at Lausanne.”

Nonsense.

This is the real reason we lost those lands.

Now I ask.

What would you have done if you were in power against a rebel who incited the public against the government and the existing regime, called for rebellion by issuing a manifesto to the public, took state officials and state governors hostage, rose up armed against the state, besieged and looted a city, killed its soldiers and officers, gave regions to his own men and appointed them as front commanders, promised them land, and furthermore, prevented us from taking the most fertile region in the world?

You probably wouldn’t have given them flowers.

But look, today the name “Sheikh Said” is being given to a boulevard in the city of Diyarbakır. Songs are being composed in his name, and eulogies are being written. Did Sheikh Said capture Diyarbakır, which he besieged 100 years ago, and we didn't know about it? The government must explain this situation.

What is happening there?