By Badr Ismail Sheroki
Why does the term “Northern Iraq” replace the historical and geographical name “Kurdistan” in political literature and popular circles within the Iraqi street so easily? Is this description merely a spontaneous, natural geographical indicator, or is it the product of a linguistic laboratory created by central authorities who, since 1922, have attempted to melt the national and cultural identity of a major component of this country?
This question requires deep and objective reflection. If we look at the issue according to the post-WWI political map and the Sykes-Picot Agreement, there is no doubt that Kurdistan is located in the northern section of an entity called Iraq. From this perspective, the use of the term “the North” by an ordinary citizen in the center or south might only indicate a geographical direction without any political intentions. However, when we contemplate the language of decision-makers and politicians in Baghdad throughout modern Iraqi history, the story changes completely. Here, language is transformed into a decisive political tool! The use of “the North” instead of “Kurdistan” by those in power is neither fair nor innocent in its intentions.
Politics in old Iraq was managed under a totalitarian system and an absolute, singular central authority that recognized people and nationalities only through security lines and military maps. From this viewpoint, the Kurds as a nationality and Kurdistan as a land were seen as a mere soulless appendage belonging to the central authority. Recognizing the authentic national identity and the specific culture of the region represented, in their view, a threat to the legitimacy of the one-party state; therefore, they always sought to distort and erase these historical facts.
In truth, the rulers of Baghdad over an entire century did not only fail to prepare a healthy ground for peaceful coexistence in a diverse society, but they also turned the border lines on the map into fiery trenches to deepen division and hostility between nationalities, sects, and components. This divisive discourse left a deep historical wound; if it is not addressed today through a new national will and away from the old mentality, it will be a cause for continued conflict and a lack of understanding for future generations as well.
The time has come for Arab citizens and politicians in Iraq to realize the fixed truth: that the existence and history of Kurdistan did not begin with the drawing of the Iraqi state map.
The “Kurdistan Region” is not merely an administrative title or a rigid term in the new constitution, but a federal entity and an identity for a society that has lived on this land for thousands of years. It is a society with a history full of sacrifices, but today it has rejected the “victim” mentality and is preparing for a new phase of reconstruction, coexistence, balance, and acceptance of the other.
In order to build and consolidate a stable Iraq, the federal government must recognize this truth in its directives, media, and political literature: that this region is not just “a piece of land in the north,” but a historical homeland for a nation that, due to the changes that occurred after 1922, became a primary partner in this country.
In the new era, institutionalizing federalism and respecting the official language and national particularities will not weaken Iraq; rather, it will further strengthen the foundations of voluntary and genuine unity. Just as enshrining the name “Kurdistan Region” in the constitution did not cause any catastrophe or division, it has instead become a part of a modern political culture that must be reflected in the conscience of society and state institutions alike.
Note: This text is translated from the original Arabic version… Read the Arabic version: Click here
