MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli has called for the immediate dissolution of the PKK, proposing that the organization convene a congress on Sunday, May 4, 2025, in Malazgirt, Muş, to finalize its disbandment. Bahçeli suggested that this event be supported by the DEM Party-affiliated mayor of Malazgirt, emphasizing that it should bring an end to discussions on the PKK’s dissolution once and for all.
In a statement marking the Nevruz Festival, Bahçeli highlighted the need for decisive action, saying: “The goal and determination for a Terror-Free Turkey should leave its mark on this year’s Nevruz Festival.” He urged the PKK to convene its congress without delay and to lay down arms permanently.
Urgency of Dissolution and Potential Risks
Bahçeli warned that delaying the dissolution process could create an environment ripe for provocations and conspiracies, stating: “Postponing the dissolution decision could lead to unexpected conspiracies and complex provocations.” He underlined that the organization should heed the call made from İmralı on February 27, referring to the message reportedly sent by the PKK’s imprisoned leader, Abdullah Öcalan, advocating for the group to end its armed activities.
A Call for National Unity
The MHP leader stressed the importance of national unity in the face of terrorism, urging all Turkish citizens to stand together: “The Turkish nation must stand united from east to west, north to south, embracing its future and the sacred legacy of its past.”
Finalizing the Dissolution on Hıdırellez Eve
Proposing a clear deadline, Bahçeli stated that the PKK should hold its congress in Malazgirt on May 4, the eve of Hıdırellez, a symbolic date representing renewal and new beginnings. He also called for DEM Party-affiliated municipalities to facilitate this process, asserting: “The debate over dissolution should be brought to a final conclusion on the eve of Hıdırellez, and this matter must be settled.”
“A Step Must Be Taken for a Terror-Free Turkey”
Bahçeli concluded by stressing that Turkey must rid itself of the scourge of separatist terrorism, warning against hesitation: “Any hesitation or delay in achieving a Terror-Free Turkey is like adding water to a cooked meal.”
Emphasizing that Nevruz is a symbol of national unity and solidarity, he noted that the PKK laying down arms would be a critical step toward strengthening peace and security in Turkey.
Malazgirt (Manzikert) holds deep historical and symbolic significance for both Kurds and Turks, though their perspectives on its meaning differ.
For Turks:
Malazgirt is a pivotal symbol of the Turkish entrance into Anatolia. The Battle of Manzikert (1071) was a decisive victory for the Seljuk Turks under Sultan Alp Arslan against the Byzantine Empire. This victory marked the beginning of the Turkification and Islamization of Anatolia, eventually leading to the rise of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of modern Turkey. Turkish nationalists and the Turkish state celebrate Malazgirt as a key moment in their history, often linking it to the idea of Turkish continuity in Anatolia.
For Kurds:
Malazgirt is located in a historically Kurdish region in eastern Anatolia, and many of the soldiers in Alp Arslan’s army were actually Kurdish warriors and tribal leaders. Kurdish historical narratives often emphasize the role of Kurdish forces in helping the Seljuks defeat the Byzantines. However, some Kurdish perspectives view the battle as the beginning of Turkish dominance over the region, which later led to marginalization and suppression of Kurdish identity under various Turkish states, including the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey.
Modern Political & Cultural Context:
- For Turkey, Malazgirt is celebrated annually, with Turkish political leaders, especially from nationalist and conservative circles, using it to reinforce Turkish identity and unity.
- For Kurds, the region remains a Kurdish-majority area, and some Kurdish nationalists see Malazgirt as a turning point in the loss of Kurdish autonomy.
Thus, while Turks see Malazgirt as the birth of their homeland, Kurds may see it as a moment where they played a crucial role but ultimately became subjects of larger Turkish political structures.
