Kurdnation: On June 20, 2026, the human rights organization “Human Rights Activists in Iran” held a conference and media campaign titled “Political Prisoners: Narratives of Repression and Resistance” on the occasion of June 20, the World Day in Support of Political Prisoners.
At the invitation of this human rights organization, the Secretary-General of the Kurdistan Independence Party, Mr. Ashtyako Poorkarim, attended the conference as a speaker. The message of the Secretary-General of the Kurdistan Independence Party is as follows:
Ladies and gentlemen,
Dear friends,
Defenders of human rights, political and civil activists, and all those who still believe in the freedom of nations and human dignity;
First, I would like to thank the organizers of this gathering for providing, on the World Day in Support of Political Prisoners, an opportunity to speak about one of the most painful and important issues of our time.
Before entering the main subject, I hope that those who consider themselves defenders of democracy, freedom of expression, human rights, and the right of different voices to be heard will also have the capacity to hear another narrative; a narrative different from the official narratives of occupying states and state-written histories. If democracy is not merely the right to speak, but also the right to be heard, then accepting different narratives of history, identity, and political legitimacy is an inseparable part of democracy.
I also find it necessary, at the outset, to apologize to my own nation and to other non-Persian nations for having to deliver my remarks in a language that, for many of us, is not merely a means of communication, but carries part of the historical memory of our pain and suffering; a language that, for many generations of Kurds, Baloch, Ahwazi Arabs, Turkmens, Turks, Caspian peoples, and other non-Persian nations, evokes imprisonment, torture, execution, structural discrimination, occupation, and the denial of national identity. Nevertheless, the choice of this language is not a matter of preference, but of necessity, so that we may carry our voice beyond the borders of our homeland.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I am not here today only to speak about political prisoners, although their fate is an inseparable part of the fate of my nation. The issue I wish to address goes beyond prisons, death sentences, and several decades of human rights violations. The core issue is the condition of a nation that, for more than a century, has resisted a continuous project of centralizing power, denying identity, stripping away political will, occupation, and the gradual elimination of its national existence.
In common political discourse, when Kurdistan under Iranian occupation, or Rojhelat of Kurdistan, is discussed, the issue is often framed as ethnic discrimination, uneven development, minority rights, or human rights violations. These are all parts of the reality, but they do not explain the depth of the issue. The question of Kurdistan is not merely a human rights crisis; it is a more fundamental issue that goes back to the relationship between an occupying state and an occupied nation, between power and legitimacy, and between sovereignty and consent.
The fundamental question is this: Is every state that governs over certain territories necessarily the legitimate representative of all the nations living in those territories? Contemporary history has shown that many empires and colonial systems possessed states, laws, armies, and administrative institutions, but they lacked moral and political legitimacy. Statehood alone does not create legitimacy. Legitimacy is formed when political power is based on the free consent of the people, not on military domination, denial of identity, and the imposition of a historical narrative.
It is from this perspective that the question of Kurdistan must be re-examined. The Kurdish nation, with its language, culture, historical memory, geography, and national consciousness, existed before the formation of the fake and fabricated state of Iran. When we speak of Kurdistan, we are not speaking of an administrative unit within the structure of Iran; we are speaking of the historical homeland of a nation whose existence has been formed and sustained independently of the official narrative of the Iranian state. Therefore, from our perspective, the demand for the right to self-determination for the Kurdish nation is not merely a political demand, but the expression of a fundamental human and national right.
It is sometimes said that some Kurds or other non-Persian nations consider themselves “Iranian,” and that this is evidence of a shared national identity. But political science, political sociology, and colonial studies teach us that identities are not always the product of free choice. Occupying states do not rule only through armies and security forces; they also reproduce their desired identity through education, media, official language, state historiography, and cultural mechanisms. When generations are exposed to policies of homogenization and assimilation, some individuals may come to accept the narrative of the dominant power as their natural identity.
For this reason, what is today presented as “Iranianness,” from the perspective of many non-Persian nations, is not a reflection of their free will, but the historical result of a project aimed at centralizing power and privileging one identity over other identities. We do not consider ourselves the periphery of Iran, because we do not regard Iran as our center. For the Kurdish nation, Kurdistan is not the periphery of any other center; Kurdistan itself is the center of the historical, cultural, and political existence of the Kurdish nation.
In such a context, the concept of the political prisoner acquires a meaning beyond a judicial case. The political prisoner in Kurdistan is the symbol of the confrontation between two historical wills: on one side, the will of a nation that seeks to preserve its language, culture, historical memory, and future; and on the other side, a political structure that sees its survival in cultural homogenization and the centralization of identity. This is why, in Kurdistan, it is not only politicians who are imprisoned; teachers, writers, environmental activists, students, and women are also imprisoned, because each of them, in one way or another, defends the language, history, land, future, and freedom of their nation.
Alongside this political repression, Kurdistan is also confronted with another form of domination; a domination that is visible in the economy and the environment. A land that possesses natural resources, mines, agricultural capacities, water resources, and a strategic position continues to face unemployment, poverty, forced migration, and underdevelopment. This contradiction cannot be explained merely by economic inefficiency; it must be understood within the framework of the political economy of domination — a condition in which resources are extracted, but their benefits do not return to the rightful owners of the land.
At the same time, the forests of the Zagros are burning, rivers are drying up, water-transfer projects are being implemented, mines are expanding, and the nature of Kurdistan is being placed under pressure. From this perspective, defending the environment in Kurdistan is not merely an environmental activity; it is part of defending the right of a nation to protect its historical homeland.
Many analysts describe what is happening in Kurdistan as “internal colonialism,” but from our perspective, this concept does not explain the whole reality. Internal colonialism is based on the assumption that the colonizer and the colonized are part of a single national society; whereas the Kurdish nation has never considered itself part of the Persian nation, nor has it regarded the Iranian state as the embodiment of its own national will. What has been imposed on Kurdistan is not merely the domination of a center over a periphery; rather, it is the domination of a political structure that has been imposed upon our land and our nation from outside our national identity.
For this reason, the question of Kurdistan cannot be solved merely through administrative reforms or changes of government, because its root lies in a fundamental question: Who has the right to decide the fate of a nation?
The answer of international law is clear. The Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental human rights covenants have emphasized the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. This principle is neither a favor granted by states nor a privilege bestowed by great powers; rather, it is part of the moral and legal foundation of the contemporary international order.
Therefore, when we speak of independence, we do not speak of hatred toward other nations. We speak of a simple and human principle: no nation should rule over another nation, no identity should be imposed upon another identity, and no society should be forced into a permanent struggle merely to prove its own existence.
In conclusion, I emphasize that the issue of Kurdish political prisoners cannot be separated from the issue of the freedom of the Kurdish nation; just as the freedom of the Kurdish nation cannot be separated from justice, development, the environment, human rights, and human dignity. All these issues return to one fundamental question: Do nations have the right to freely determine their own destiny?
I believe that the sustainable future of our region will be shaped not on the basis of domination, but on the basis of consent; not on the basis of denial, but on the basis of recognition; and not on the basis of ruling over nations, but on the basis of the free will of nations.
Thank you.
