WHY IS ORHAN PAMUK HATED SO MUCH IN TURKEY?
ArmInfo
2009-11-04 16:36:00
ArmInfo. Just go to Google and write in Orhan Pamuk and "hain" (the
Turkish equivalent of traitor) and you will get almost 40,000 hits.
There are many Turks who hate Pamuk, but why? To get answer to this
question see the item by Orhan Kemal Cengiz in the Tioday’s Zaman.
Thus, the author writes: "He (Pamuk) is the only Turkish writer/artist
ever to have received the Nobel Prize. Of course, there are also
many people in Turkey who greatly admire Pamuk, including myself,
but then again there are many others who really hate him, and this
is worth thinking on.
An ordinary nationalist person in Turkey either dislikes or hates
Pamuk. One of the main reasons for that is Pamuk’s remarks about
past atrocities in Turkey. In 2005, during an interview with the
Swiss publication Das Magazin, Pamuk said: "Thirty thousand Kurds
have been killed here, and 1 million Armenians. And almost nobody
dares to mention that. So I do." That’s it. Just these few sentences
created so much turmoil in Turkey. I believe Pamuk still suffers from
it. First there was a charge against him under the infamous Article
301, for denigrating Turkishness. It is, of course, an historical
irony that the person who glorifies Turkey, Istanbul, Anatolia and
therefore "Turkishness" with his magnificent novels was put on trial
or insulting it. This is Turkish tragicomedy. This is the price Turkey
has long been paying for not confronting its past.
Pamuk was tried under this article before the article was finally
amended and the case dropped. However, some legal avenues remained
that could be used against Pamuk. A person who is now being tried
in the Ergenekon (deep state) case and five of his friends brought
a compensation case against Pamuk, claiming that their feelings were
hurt because Pamuk’s remarks "denigrated Turkishness." The court of
first instance refused to hear the case, stating that no one could
claim compensation for "an attack on personal rights" just for being
a member of the Turkish nation. We all took a deep breath and hoped
that this embarrassing process was closed. But then the nightmare
started again when "plaintiffs" took the case before the Supreme Court
of Appeals. That court overturned the decision of the court of first
instance and decided that according to Article 66 of the Constitution,
"Everyone connected to the Turkish State with the bond of citizenship
is Turkish," and that just as individuals had honor, feelings of
belonging to a nation were also part of personal values. Do you see the
implications of this decision? Theoretically every Turkish citizen,
70 million individuals, can bring cases seeking compensation against
Pamuk. This is a legal lynching. In practice, it will not work like
that — because of the statute of limitations, it is not possible to
bring a new case for these past remarks against Pamuk.
And I think the appeals court will change this "precedent" in some
other case in the future. They are just trying to give a strong
"message" to Pamuk — the message of the Turkish "deep" state.
There were also some other campaigns against Pamuk in the Turkish
media: Some "writers" and "columnists" accused him of imitation and
plagiarism. During trials, he received many death threats, and later
left Turkey for New York. When he returns to Istanbul, as he does
occasionally, he does it secretly. What a shame for Turkish society!
Where does all this hatred come from? I’ve already mentioned one
source, namely, the denial of the past. As with a neurotic person,
when you touch old wounds, you confront an uncontrollable storm of
anger in Turkey. You become a "traitor," which is the easiest thing
to be in my country.
I believe even if Pamuk had not said the things he said about past
atrocities in Turkey, he would not have been welcomed enthusiastically
by nationalist Turks. Because Pamuk talks on behalf of the real
Turkey, which has a long history and rich traditions, which embraces
different cultures, different ethnicities and different religions. For
the nationalist Turk, Turkish history either starts 80 years ago or
with a distorted Ottoman past. Pamuk represent peace with the real
identity of this country, openness, harmony and a readiness to grow
and to become richer culturally. For nationalist Turks, there is no
friend except Turks, and Turkey is surrounded by enemies. In every
country there are, of course, nationalist people, but in Turkey this
"typology" is supposed to be the norm. The ideal citizen is a secular,
nationalist, white Turk who adores Ataturk and his "revolutions." The
ideal citizen of Turkey is too artificial, too shallow to embrace any
real depth like the one Orhan Pamuk represents. So Pamuk represents
an unbearable figure for them. They can only handle him in this
"lynching" context.
I recently realized that some nationalist Web sites were attacking
me by drawing parallels between me and Pamuk. They think they are
insulting me, but I really enjoyed the way one of them mentions my
name: It says Orhan Pamuk Cengiz. I hope one day I actually deserve
their compliment!"
The author of the item working in Turkey as lawyer and human rights
defender for long time has been repeatedly threatened and subjected
to terror for his activity.