I
would like first to give you some examples and to explain what I mean with the
word “Cypriotism”. It was at the beginning of the year 1927 when Ronald Storrs,
the British Colonial Governor of Cyprus, wanted to use for the first time
officially this term in the government offices instead of the term “native”
which he thought could be degrading. He mentioned about this decision in his
report, dated 9 June 1932. Mr.Amery, the Minister of Colonies also wanted that
the subject of “Cypriot patriotism” would be taught more at the Greek Cypriot
schools in order to stop the dissemination of nationalism among the pupils. Mr.
Amery also put the idea forward that the Cypriots should have a flag of their
own and this new flag could be introduced together with the liberal
constitutional amendments in 1925. But the authorities at the Ministry of
Colonies did not approve the idea of banning the use of the Greek flag in
Cyprus.[1]
The
growing resentment of the Greek Cypriot masses against the British colonial
regime which culminated in the formation of the Communist Party of Cyprus in
1926 caused also the reaction of the Greek Cypriot nationalists, who were
alarmed by the policy of the Communist Party, which was against the enosis
policy of the nationalists. The British colonial administration was also
alarmed that the Communists could have wider support of the people and they
could raise a struggle for the independence of the island. Although the CP did
not have a followship among the T/C community, there were some contacts, for
example the correspondence between the communist newspaper Neos Antropos and
the T/C Birlik newspaper in 1925 or the organization of the T/C workers in the
common Labour Centre in Limassol in 1924.[2]
The colonialists were quick enough to turn their strategy of supporting
Cypriotism into tolerating the nationalist propaganda, made in the both
communities.
The
Turkish Cypriots had always been against the union of the island with Greece
(enosis) and since from the start of the British administration in Cyprus, they
raised every year their voice at the opening ceremony of the Legislative
Council, where the G/C representatives spoke about their demand for enosis. But
the nationalist attitude of the G/C members of the parliament did not stop the
T/C members from cooperating with their compatriots in economical matters. For
example, Hafiz Ziyai Efendi and Dervish Pasha voted in June 1902 together with
the G/C members for the abolition of the Tribute paid to the Ottoman Empire by
the Cypriots, which should be paid only by the British. A government official
went to the mosque and provoked the T/Cs to protest against this cooperation
with the G/CS. Irfan Efendi and the deputy Mufti also spoke at the mosque and
provoked the community against the Moslem members of the Legislative Council.
The two T/C members of the Legislative Council were forced after this event to
change their policy of cooperation with the G/Cs at the parliament in order not
to be accused of being pro G/C. It is interesting to note that Irfan Efendi was
appointed in February 1904 as the T/C delegate of Evkaf by the British colonial
government.[3]
Sir
Harry Luke wrote that when Britain declared the annexation of the island with
the British Empire, it was his duty to tell the news to the T/C notables who
were together in an engagement ceremony of Mehmet Munir’s daughter on 5
November 1914 at the house of Mufti Ziyai. They heard the news with “dignified
resignation”.[4] The T/C leaders visited the other
day the British High Commissioner and told him that they accepted the change of
status of the island and that they would be loyal to the British
administration. On the other hand the chief kadi, Mufti, Irfan Bey and Sevket
Bey sent a letter to the British authorities that they were against the demand
of the G/Cs for enosis and instead of this, the island should be permanently b
a part of the British Empire. If enosis would be realized, it would be a
disaster for the 60 thousand Muslims of Cyprus.[5]
As the G/C nationalists raised their
nationalist campaign for enosis and disseminated the feelings of mainland Greek
nationalism in Cyprus, a section of the T/C elite also started to import
mainland Turkish nationalism into Cyprus. The deputy of the British High
Commissioner in Cyprus, Mr.Stevenson, sent a secret report to Vicont Milner,
dated 26 April 1919, that Young Turks were active in Cyprus and that Mehmet
Esat, Dr. Huseyin Behic and Hasan Karabardak were the leaders of a party called
“Union with Turkey”.[6] They
disseminated a rumour that the Greeks would attack the Turks during the Easter
week, causing enmity between the T/Cs and G/Cs. The T/C members of the
Parliament, Mr. Irfan and Mr.Hami were not involved in these activities. The
main instigators of these events, who provoked the T/Cs to make a rebellion,
were arrested and imprisoned by the British.
According
to the minutes of the Legislative Council, the T/C members of the parliament
started to demand “the return of the island to the Ottoman Empire” more often
during the period between March 1911 and June 1917.[7]
Because
of the difficult years of the First World War, there was no publication of any
T/C newspapers between 1915 and 1919, therefore two weekly newspapers, Dogru
Yol (8 September 1919) and Soz (15 February 1921) started their publication
in order to inform the T/Cs about the developments in the world, in Turkey and
on the island. In 1922, there were 23 newspaper published in Cyprus, 6 of them
being in Turkish language. The top-selling newspaper was the G/C owned
Eleftheria (1700-1800 copies) and the second in the row was the T/C owned Soz
newspaper (1200 copies).[8]
Mrs.Beria
Remzi Ozoran, the daughter of the owner of the Soz newspaper, gave the following
information about the subjects dealt with in the T/C press of those years:
“In these newspapers and journals,
there were articles dealing with what the T/Cs should do, in order to continue
the existence of the Turkish entity on this green island and in order to live
on these territories with dignity. Struggle against illiteracy, organization of
the T/C community, economic development, the establishment of a national bank
were the necessity of the day. The majority of the intellectuals who were civil
servants and the teachers were under difficult conditions, because of the high
cost of living and the T/C farmers were in crisis because of their debts. The
Turkish monuments in Cyprus should be preserved. The T/Cs should come together
and form companies so that they could have a strong economy in order to survive
under a foreign administration.
The T/C press followed the
liberation struggle in Anatolia step by step and collected money for the
victims of the disaster in Anatolia through solidarity campaigns. The T/C
newspapers did not hesitate also to defend the rights of the T/Cs against the
G/Cs’ demands for enosis.” [9]
The
publication of the Soz newspaper was appreciated in Ankara with great interest
and it received many years financial support from the Turkish governments. Soz
was the main organ, which helped the dissemination of the Kemalist ideas among
the T/Cs. For the internal affairs, the editor and the owner of the Soz
newspaper, Mehmet Remzi wrote on 7 March 1921 the following under the title “Our
Parliament”:
“Today
our Parliament is going to be opened. It is the duty of the government to tell
the G/Cs that the enosis issue which terrorized the people of the island is
closed once and for all. This dangerous game is being played so many times that
our security-loving people cannot bear it anymore. If this thorny issue which
damaged the relations between the two communities of the island will be
removed, the parliamentarians of both sides will have enough time to
investigate the real needs of the country and they will negotiate the mutual
draft laws in an atmosphere of trust... If the Christian members think that
they have more rights than their compatriots Turkish Cypriots on this island,
then they have to accept that the T/C members do not tolerate the discussion of
Cyprus-Greek issue at the Legislative Assembly.”
We
read in the Alithia newspaper of 30 April 1921 a letter of a T/C ex-member of
the parliament. He supported the cooperation of the T/C and G/C members and he
pointed the fact that it was only in the last 10-15 years that the T/C and G/C
members made it as a habit to complain mutually in the Parliament. Whereas in
the early days of the British Administration, they cooperated in local matters.[10]
We
can find other articles published in the G/C press. For example, Mr.Ioannis
Clerides, was writing in Eleftheria of 2 April 1926 under the title “If the
T/Cs would cooperate with the G/Cs” the following:
“Our Moslem brothers have to
understand that they have common interests with us and the progress and the
prosperity of both the G/Cs and T/Cs depends on the cooperation of the two
communities.[11]
Similar
views were expressed by Mr.Yorgo Hadjipavlou in an article published in the
“Nea Laiki” newspaper of 23 September 1927: “We could go forward only if we
cooperate with the T/Cs.” He wrote three months later again in the same
newspaper on 23 December 1927 that there was no chance of cooperation in the
Legislative Council, since the T/C members were under the influence of the
British colonial government through Evkaf. Therefore the G/Cs should support
the populist T/Cs so that they can enter the parliament and get rid of the
pro-Evkaf leaders. Only these progressive T/Cs could reject to be the secret
keys of the government. Mr.Hadjipavlou went further and recommended that
leaflets in Turkish should be printed and the deficiency of the T/C members in
defending the local interests should be exposed to the T/C community.[12]
We
observe here that since the beginning of the British administration in Cyprus,
the number of the T/Cs together with the British members of the Legislative
Council were designed to be equal to the number of the G/C members. The
representation of the both communities was reflected in the parliament, not
according to the ratio of the population. The T/C minority was seen politically
as a guarantee against the enosis demands of the G/C majority. There were
separate electoral lists and separate mainland-nationalist-oriented educational
programmes for the T/Cs and G/Cs, which hindered them to develop a common
Cypriot political policy against the British colonial administration.
This
was already stressed by Dr. Eyyub, a T/C member of the parliament in his speech
at the parliament’s opening ceremony on 11 November 1925. He said that the G/Cs
and the G/Cs were not ready for a full cooperation on political matters. So
they had to put aside the political questions and cooperate in other issues
which would bring prosperity to the whole island. We see that this was realized
later through the common activities of the MPs in the struggle against
trachoma, tuberculosis, venerial diseases, for the abolition of the tax of
tithes, for a forest policy and for the financial support of the farmers.
We
observe again during the elections of 1930 that Mr.Yorgo Hadjipavlou supported
the election campaign of Nedjati Bey, who was the Kemalist candidate against
Mr. Munir, the Turkish delegate of Evkaf. He was supported by Asaf Bey, the
Turkish consul in Cyprus. While the populist Mr.Nedjati spoke at the Parliament
that Cyprus was a part of Anatolia, the pro-British Dr.Eyyub, also an MP,
criticized in his articles, published in the pro-Evkaf “Hakikat” newspaper,
that the nationalists wanted to copy everything done in Turkey, even if the two
countries had different administrative and social structures.[13]
Mr.Nedjati
was named by the British governor Ronald Storrs in his memoirs as “that little
Turk, the 13th G/C member of the Legislative Council”[14] When Mr.Nedjati voted on 28 April 1931
together with the G/C members against the draft Law of Customs Tariff and
Revenue, the automatic support of the T/C members failed, since the other two
T/C MPs were absent during the voting. This was another case of cooperation
after the one when the T/C and G/C members voted together against the Draft
Budget of 1927 in the Legislative Council.
When
the British colonial government wanted to impose the aborted draft law, the
pro-enosis nationalist events of October 1931 were started by the G/Cs. The
British administration took this opportunity to abolish the Legislative Council
and it suspended the constitutional order which followed a period of oppression
until 1941.
During
the oppressive period of the new British colonial governor Mr.Palmer, the Greek
and Turkish nationalisms were put under pressure for a while. On the other hand
the movement of the working people was getting strong after 1942. The British
used both nationalisms as a remedy in order to oppress the working people.
Nationalism was seen less harmful than a common front of the Turkish Cypriot
and Greek Cypriot workers against British Administration.
In
the 1930’s the nightmare of the British colonialists was that the concept of
Cypriotism would be in the foreground and leave Greek Cypriot and Turkish
Cypriot nationalisms behind. Mr.Palmer, the British Governor, was of the
opinion that after the idea of “Enosis” was forgotten, “Cypriot nationalism”
would replace it. According to Mr.Palmer, the only way to stop or postpone this
development was to establish a new administrational structure which would
provoke inter-regional difference of identity. The Governor Palmer, in a secret
report sent to London on 23 October 1936, was saying the following:
“In
order to have ease in the future on the island, we have to continue the administration
on the basis of exceptis excipiendis (opening the way to exceptions), on the
basis of districts. Thus the concept of Cypriot nationalism -which will be
emerging as a new concept after Enosis becomes an eroded value- should be
pushed away as much as possible and left in the dark. Now it is almost not
living. Cypriots are either their district’s “nationalists”, or they are Greek
or Turks.” [15]
During
the oppressive period which started with Governor Palmer, we observe the
cooperation of the G/Cs and T/Cs for the autonomy of the island, a common
political aim. The T/C “Ses” newspaper in 1937 under the title “Political
Association” reproduced a news item from the G/C “Eleftheria” newspaper that a
joint political association by the G/Cs and T/Cs was established for the
support of the autonomy of the island, with branches established in every town,
besides Nicosia. The well-known Nicosia advocate Mr.Yiannis Clerides was the
leader of this Political Association. Ex-member of the Legislative Council
M.Hami, member of the Larnaca Town Council advocate Mr.Celal Shefik, member of
the Limassol Town Council dentist Mr.Nazif were among the T/C notables who
participated at the formation of this Association in their respective towns.[16]
The
political cooperation of some T/Cs with their compatriots was attacked
immediately in the T/C press. An article under the title “Is the political and
cultural unity of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots going to start instead of
a Turkish-British cooperation?” was published in “Ses” newspaper of 25 June
1937 (No.99) to this effect where the participation of Mr.Mustafa Hami, one of
the ex-Turkish Cypriot members of the Legislative Council which was closed, was
being criticised and the following was written:
“If
this situation continues, the government will soon see the unity of policy and
culture of Turkish and Greek Cypriots rather than the traditional cooperation
between the Turks and the British in Cyprus. Today’s policy is the shortest way
for appreciation of this aim by the government. Otherwise Turkish Cypriots’
complaints should be heard and satisfied. It is certain that central government
will think likewise.”
This
main article which was published in the “Ses” newspaper, one of the Turkish
Cypriot press organs defending Turkish nationalism and Kemalism, gives us a
good idea of the dominant Turkish Cypriot way of thinking.
We
have to point out that, right after these developments, Greek Cypriots and
Turkish Cypriots fought and served together during the Second World War on the
side of the British on various fronts and at home they organised themselves in
the same trade unions against difficult economic conditions. At this point, it
has to be emphasised that the enosis policy of the Progressive Party of the
Working people of Cyprus (AKEL), which was formed in 1941 was the biggest
obstacle for T/Cs’ political cooperation.
In
1955, when the EOKA’s gunned terrorist activities started for the abolition of
the British administration and for the union of Cyprus with Greece, the British
colonial administration used the Turkish Cypriot police and commandos against
the EOKA. The collaborationist Turkish Cypriot leadership adopted the British
plans which aimed at the partition of the island (taksim) as a political
solution against enosis. This was enough to cause a conflict among the
Cypriots.
The
Turkish Cypriot underground organization TMT forced the Turkish Cypriot trade
unions not to cooperate with the G/C trade unions, thus destroying the
foundations of the common economical and political struggle. At the end of the
day, neither the Greek Cypriots’ aim for enosis, nor the Turkish Cypriots’ aim
for taksim was materialised, but a limited independence was given to the
partnership republic of Cyprus which was established in 1960. The unity of
action of all Cypriots could not be developed under this new common shared aim and
this caused new bitterness.
On
the day of independence, 16 August 1960, we see the first issue of the T/CS
newspaper “Cumhuriyet” (Republic) which was published by the two T/C advocates,
Ahmet Muzaffer Gurkan and Ayhan Hikmet. For the first time, the ideas of
Cypriotism were being propagated among the T/Cs, through an oppositional newspaper
and later by the organization of a political party. The “Cumhuriyet” writers
were supporting the news that the independence of Cyprus meant, not to union
the island with one nation or state, but to govern Cyprus by the Cypriots.
Unfortunately these staunch supporters of the Republic of Cyprus were killed by
the T/C underground organization TMT on 23 April 1962, on the pretext that
“they served the interests of the G/Cs”. They were warned before they were
murdered that “if they did not believe in the existence of the national
struggle of the T/CS, they should be silenced.”
Dervish
Ali Kavazoglou, who was a T/C member of Central Committee of the AKEL was also
murdered together with his G/C trade-unionist friend on 11 April 1965. He was
against the partitionist policies of the T/C leadership and for the friendship
and cooperation of the two communities in Cyprus.
As
the imperialist foreign powers and their tools on the island were against the
independent development of the Republic of Cyprus which followed an independent
non-aligned foreign policy, they were continuously inciting nationalistic and
anti-communist feelings of the island’s population. We observe again in this
period that a Cypriot awareness could not be developed to a sufficient degree.
The guarantors of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Cyprus were members of the NATO, i.e. Britain, Greece and Turkey and they did
not want to see a Cypriot state, free of their influences for reasons known to
themselves.
On
the other hand, Archbishop Makarios, the President of the Republic did not
believe in the idea of creating a new Cypriot nation. He told to an Italian
newspaper that the London Agreements created a new state, but not a new nation.[17]
In those times, contrary to the
processes in Europe, many African and Asian states were formed before the consolidation
of a nation. In the case of Cyprus, the partnership lasted only three years,
because the T/C leadership withdrew from the state apparatus. The intercommunal
clashes between the pro-enosis G/Cs and the pro-partition T/Cs complicated the
solution of the ethnic-national question in Cyprus.
We
observe that the separatist policy of the Turkish Cypriot leadership since 1958
was one of the reasons that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots could not have
a common political aim during the period until 1974.
In the summer of 1974, the coup
d’Etat was staged in Cyprus by the Greek Junta of Athens against President
Makarios and this followed by the Turkish invasion and the occupation of the
island’s 37% territory. The G/Cs were forced to leave the occupied areas and
the T/Cs living in south of the cease-fire line were transported to the
northern part. The new state of affairs forced the T/Cs to have closer
relationship with Turkey. The T/Cs became under the direct influence of the
mainland Turkish economy, politics and culture.
The Soz newspaper which started its
publication in 1978 turned to be the main critic of the intervention of the
Turkish politicians into the T/C internal affairs. The influx of mainland
Turkish settlers in the occupied areas threatened the existence of the T/Cs.
This led them to re-identify their communal characteristics as T/C community. A
series of panels on T/C identity, folkloric exhibitions and historical research
were done in the 1980’s.[18]
The
T/C intellectuals started to ask themselves the question “who are we?” as they
looked into the history of their cultural heritage. A new T/C identity
developed in the process of ongoing experiences on two fronts, one in their
relationship with Turkey and the other one with the G/Cs. The similarities and
differences were reviewed and reassessed.
As it is well-known, the cultural,
the scientific and the literary heritage are the three important components of
the national consciousness. Here we see the responsibility of the researchers
for the development of a common Cypriot consciousness. They have to research
the common cultural heritage and use these common elements for a common
political aim. The cooperation between the two communities in the commercial
and social life and in trade union movement in the past are the good examples
of the coexistence of the two communities.
The
class character of the state has a big role to play in the formation of the
Cypriot consciousness. There has to be a clearly designed state policy for the
support of a Cypriot identity. The organs of the mass media should also play a
constructive role in this respect since they can easily reach to the homes of
almost all citizens.
We
see that especially after 1974, two different identities emerged: One in the
north of the divide, possessing the separatist TRNC as an expression of T/Cs’
nationalist identity and another one in the south of the divide, as the sole
owner of the Cypriot state which has distinctively a G/C character. This is
similar to the prediction of the British Governor Palmer in 1937: “The concept
of Cypriot nationalism -which will be emerging as a new concept after Enosis
becomes an eroded value- should be pushed away as much as possible and left in
the dark. Now it is almost not living. Cypriots are either their district’s
“nationalists”, or they are Greek or Turks.”
The
activities of the News Cyprus Association which was formed in March 1975 were
aimed to preserve the existence of the state of Cyprus and to avert the danger
of partition by behaving first as Cypriots and then as a member of the
respective community. Unfortunately in the past 30 years, this movement of
intellectuals could not turn into a political movement which could organise
great masses of T/Cs and G/Cs under a common Cypriot identity.
In order to reach at this main goal,
there should be common political parties of T/Cs and G/Cs, seeking common
political aims. The full equality of all the communities living on the island
in the fields of politics, economy and culture could only be achieved through
common political parties which will fight for a democratic federal state and
against all kinds of separatism and discrimination. A correct policy for the
solution of the problem of nationalities is indispensable and this is the
responsibility of the party of the working class, the AKEL. Unless the AKEL
review its policy for the T/Cs and turn to them, no step could be achieved with
the existing nationalist policies and this would consolidate the partition of
the island.
(This paper was read for the first time at the
seminar of the New Cyprus Association held on 10 November 2005 in Limassol
under the subject “Cypriot Identity: Reality or Necessity?”)
[2] An, Ahmet, The good old days of the
cooperation among the Cypriot Working Class, paper read at the Conference of
the PEO/DEV-IS on 13 October 2005 in Nicosia and Michalis Michaelides, Turkish
Cypriot Working Class and the Cyprus Labour Movement 1920-1963, Cyprus Review,
Fall 1993.
[3] G.S.Georghallides, A political and
administrative history of Cyprus, 1918-1926, Nicosia, p.72 and A.An, Formation
of T/CS Leadership 1900-1942, Nicoisa, 1997, p.14-15
[4] Sir Harry Luke, Cyprus: A Portrait
and an Appreciation, London 1965, p.87-88
[5] Sir George Hill, A History of
Cyprus, Cambridge 1972, p.521
[6] Stavros Panteli, The New History of
Cyprus, London 1984, p.98
[7] Jacob M.Landau, Pan-Turkism in
Turkey: A Study of Irredentism, London 1981, p.48
[8] Cyprus Blue Book 1922
[9] Yeni Kibris, The T/CS community
during the years of Liberation in Anatolia, Yeni Kibris, April 1987
[10] Quoted from S.G.Georghallides,
ibid, p.198
[11]
Quoted from Costas P.Kyrris, Peaceful Coexistence in Cyprus under
British rule (1878-1959) and After Independence, Nicosia 1977, p.44
[12] G.S.Georghallides, ibid, p.67
[13] Ahmet An, Formation of the T/C
leadership, Nicosia 1997, p. 149 and p.165
[14] Orientations, London 1943, p.502
[15] Quoted in Ahmet An, Development of
Cypriot Awareness, Nicosia 1998, p.43
[16] Ahmet An, Why was it not possible
to develop a Cypriot Awareness?, in Quo Vadis Cyprus?, Istanbul 2002, p.264-274
[17] Cyprus Mail and Akin, 28 March 1963
[18] Ahmet An, An Overview of the
Research Studies on the Identity of the T/Cs, in “Articles on the Turkish Cypriot
Culture”, Nicosia 1999, p.222-230
No comments:
Post a Comment