|
Frederick
P. Isaac
Copyright (c) Frederick P. Isaac.
All Rights Reserved.
Articles and book information on Assyrian issues including contemporary
history, experiences under Islamic rule, leadership and Assyrian
aspirations to nationhood.
|

|
|
|
Assyrians - the Forgotten People, Part II
by Frederick P.
Isaac
Copyright
(c) Frederick P. Isaac, 2000. All Rights Reserved.
Under the strict rule of the Islamic 'millet' provision, the Assyrian
nation was fragmented into a false mix of multitudes and robbed of its
true national identity. None of the Assyrian Christian denominations were
allowed to declare themselves Assyrian in nationality. The word "Assyrian"
was a taboo. Other than freedom of worship, the 'millets' were categorized
by the Islamic state as aliens in their traditional homeland. There was no
room for dialogue. Retribution was swift and harsh for anyone that
declared himself Assyrian or manifested disloyalty, especially church
leaders. Execution was the norm in reprisal for dissension.
In the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution of 17 October 1917, Russia
drew back its forces from certain occupied territories of the collapsed
Ottoman Empire. Soviet Russia withdrew its forces to within its borders
and revoked the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement to which it was a party.
Following its withdrawal, Turkish and Persian governments, in the name of
Jihad (holy war) stirred up the Kurds against the Assyrians. The Kurdish
hordes, descended on the Assyrian villages and towns, killing and
pillaging in the name of Allah. They expelled thousands of families from
Hakkari, Van and Urmia, Iran. They were chased away, never allowed to
return to their homes. About 25 thousand Assyrian families from Iran fled
to Russia under protection of the Russian withdrawing troops. Wave after
wave of other Assyrian families that could not reach the retreating
Russian forces, fled in a south-westerly direction from Urmia, Iran to
Mesopotamia to seek French and British protection. In the exodus, they met
with their Assyrian brethren, who had been ejected from Hakkari, Turkey.
The Assyrians regrouped, forming two flanks, to protect their families,
continued with their march southwest.
The Assyrians were received by the British forces and escorted to safety.
Some stayed in refugee camps in Baquba and Hanaidi. Others stayed with
relatives and their kinfolk in villages and towns in the northern province
of Mosul. There they sought refuge in a bid to settle and make Vilayet
Mosul, with its capital city Nineveh, their home. The Province (Vilayet)
of Mosul then still being part of South East of Ottoman Turkey, the
dislodged 'Nestorian' Assyrians considered it part of their Assyrian
territory.
|
|
The British recruited Assyrian troops and formed the Assyrian Levy, as an
auxiliary force, to guard and protect British military installations; and
help maintain law and order. Some Assyrian tribesmen, of the Hakkari, now
in Mosul, were unhappy with the way the British were treating the
Assyrians in general, and decided to return home after the 1918 Armistice
in defiance of the British orders. The Assyrian leaders felt that the
British were not genuinely concerned about their people's future and that
they were falling from favour. They were being used as mercenaries to
promote British and Arab interest. The group went back to Hakkari and
spent the winter months in their villages. But come Spring 1919, and the
Turkish troops ejected them again. They were repeatedly pushed back beyond
the newly drawn Turkish borderline into northern Iraq. During the mass
exodus of 1914-1918 over 73 thousand Assyrian men, women and children
perished from savagery of the Muslims, starvation, kidnapping and
epidemic.
On the Assyrian issue, Great Britain, in consultation with the Iraqi
government, wanted the 'Nestorian' Assyrians to integrate and become part
of the Iraqi population mix, without change to the abhorrent millet rule.
The Assyrians disagreed. They expressed firm desire for self-rule, in the
Mosul district, under the protection and supervision of the League of
Nations. The Assyrians explained that Iraq, as an Islamic state,
regardless of its form of government, treats its minorities in accordance
with the Islamic harsh millet provision. The Assyrians had been through
some terrible experiences under the theocratic millet provision during the
period of the Islamic occupation. They refused to become subjects of the
newly created Arab Hashemite Kingdom of Iraq, whose monarch claimed lineal
descent from the Prophet Mohammed. The millet provision was an old Islamic
tradition, part of its governing system, growing in popularity, and very
rewarding to Islam in increasing the landmass of the Islamic Umma. The
Iraqi government denied the allegations and described them as a gross
exaggeration and untrue. Yet, neither Britain and France, nor the central
government of Iraq would give any guarantees to discontinue the use of the
millet provision and instead, adopt democratic reforms. The Assyrians
refused to remain under Islamic rule and rejected the proposal outright.
The British sided with the Iraqi central government against the Assyrians.
Britain, being the mandatory power, persisted in its demand. It pressured
the Assyrian leadership to accept its decision and abide by the law of the
land.. True, the millet provision is not stipulated in the constitution,
yet as a hidden agenda, being part of the Islamic Shari'a law, is still
being pursued as a matter of fact. Britain's adamant stance was
interpreted by the overwhelming majority of the Assyrian people as
betrayal and a prelude to encountering more trouble from the Anglo-Iraqi
side. Britain's hard attitude gave the impression that the League of
Nations was brought under its thumb, and would not hold her accountable
for her actions. The Assyrians wanted peace. They wanted to be free. They
just wanted to live on their soil, free from outside interference, as any
other small nation. Being Christians and of good endurance, and having
survived for centuries, did not mean that the Assyrians should accept
being dispossessed of their homes and be denied of their human rights, yet
according to the hidden agenda of Britain and France, they had no share in
their plan. The Sykes-Picot Agreement left the Assyrians out in the cold.
In 1925, Great Britain annexed the detached Turkish Vilayet of Mosul to
the Hashemite Kingdom of Iraq. The deal was concluded by the Treaty of
Ankara, signed in 1926 by Turkey, Iraq and Great Britain. The Assyrians
were again left in the cold. Britain and France, failed to live up to the
morality of the League of Nations and the objectives it was set for. They
acted irresponsibly towards the Assyrian nation, with disrespect for human
rights. They played the role of real estate agent, using the League of
Nations as a brokerage, to maximize their profit from the sale of the
Mosul Province, the last bastion of the Assyrian nation. The deal awarded
the mandate's two new partners in business, Turkey and Iraq, additional
bonus. Iraq was awarded Mosul Province (which should have been reserved
for the Assyrians), and Turkey gained two and a half decades of supply of
oil from the rich oil fields of Iraq. All three parties profiteered at the
expense of the Assyrian disinherited and aggrieved people.
The British succeeded in their ploy in keeping the Assyrian people
fragmented by resorting to sectarian bigotry. It widened the chasm between
the united Assyrians of Urmia and Hakkari on the one hand and those of
Iraq and Syria on the other. They reminded the Chaldean and Jacobite
Assyrians of Iraq of their separation from the anathematized 'Nestorian'
Assyrian Church of the East. They warned them not to join hands and
refrain from any political engagement with them. They reminded them how in
1551 they united with Rome and termed themselves Chaldean to distinguish
themselves from the ex-communicated Assyrian Church of the East now
branded Nestorian - a misnomer labeled by the Councils of Ephesus (431AD).
And later in 1559, how the Assyrian Chaldean Church split again and about
half of its membership allied itself with the Syrian Jacobite Assyrians.
The British scheme succeeded in keeping the Assyrian nation fragmented
under deceitful specious names. Thus, the schism between the Assyrian
Church of the East and other split church groups widened and remained
divided. The Assyrian Church of the East had tried unsuccessfully, since
the end of World War One, to reunite the splintered groups, in order that
the Assyrians, as a whole, might gain more political weight and support
for their cause. The Islamic 'millet' policy was keen to see that the
Christian Churches, regardless of their origin, affiliation and
denomination, remained in alienation from one another. The object of the
'millet' provision was and still is to control the political activity of
the indigenous people and keep them at bay. The Armenian Church, being
outside the direct sphere of influence of Arab Islamic rule, escaped
fragmentation, although it too suffered terribly at the hands of the
Turks. In Egypt, the Christian Copts, have already been choked and forced
to abandon their native language and use the Arabic language instead.
Except for liturgy in church, the Coptic language is disallowed. Copts
have already lost their national identity. They are enumerated on the
tally sheets of the population census as Arabs. The ultimate aim of the
'millet' provision is to Arabise/Islamise the non-Muslim communities.
The Iraqi government dismissed the Assyrian demand, and saw it as a
threat. On the advice of the British, Iraq stalled. In the summer of 1933,
the rejection developed into an open confrontation that led to the Semaili
massacre. The Assyrians had placed their hope in the League of Nations,
advocates of Human Rights and U.S. President Wilson's Fourteen (14)
Points. Article 12 stipulated "... other nationalities ...under Turkish
rule should be assured undoubted security of life and an absolutely
unmolested opportunity of autonomous development..." According to
the League, the Council recognized claims of smaller nationalities. The
Assyrian people failed to understand the British motive behind their
adamant rejection. Little they had known that the ill-fated Sykes-Picot
Agreement had already robbed them of their home and denied them a share in
the spoils of the First World War. The Anglo-French administration blamed
the Assyrians for disobeying orders and accused the Iraqi army for being
overly enthusiastic and trigger-happy. The British administration at the
time seemed to lack the courage to make a turnabout face, admit its
mistake and free the Assyrians from bondage.
All three parties profiteered from the deal at the expense of the Assyrian
disinherited nation. Restoring Assyria in Mosul was against the
Anglo-French interest. Instead of neutralizing the Arabs from Mosul,
settling the displaced Assyrians in their traditional northern portion of
Assyria, by order and under protection of the League of Nations, the
British High Commission, covered up the Mandate's sinister deed, by
alleging that the Assyrians were no more than a handful minority that
hardly exceeded a few thousands, and would have had no bearing on the
outcome of the decision. Britain's injudicious act constituted breach of
trust in the League's laws of human rights. Britain and France, relied on
the low population census of the 'Nestorian' Assyrians, based on the
millet policy, to convince the League Council not to press for self-rule
for the Assyrians. Only the Nestorians were designated as Assyrians
by the British mandate. The rest of the Assyrian sects, forming a sizeable
majority, were discounted when the Assyrian case was deliberated at the
Council of the League of Nations. The aim of the mandates was to
allow the League Council to assume the other Assyrian Christian sects were
of different ethnic backgrounds. There was nothing farther from the truth.
The mandates didn't want their folly to be exposed. Had honest population
census been conducted for all the Assyrian sects of the various millet
communities, scattered all over the Middle East, the overall number
enumerated on the tally sheets would have exposed the fallacy of their
dirty game. The Assyrians were warned to either toe the line or suffer
dire consequence. Those who resisted were discredited, accused of
subversion and dealt with severely. The mandatory powers denied them the
right to appeal to the League of Nations. Iraq, being under the British
Mandate, refused the Assyrians compensation for the loss of their Hakkari
and Urmia territories. Although the northern highlands of Assyria were
swarming with Kurds, there was still plenty of good grazing and arable
land for the Kurds to be accommodated within that region. The redrawn map
of Mesopotamia by Sykes-Picot had already been ratified by the League of
Nations. Why the international community did not allot a portion of the
dissolved Mesopotamia to the indigenous Assyrian displaced nation, is a
question which as yet begs an answer from its successor, the United
Nations.
The mandates realized that they had placed themselves in an awkward
situation. To untangle themselves from the sticky problem they themselves
had created, they tried unsuccessfully, to uproot the 'Nestorian'
Assyrians and resettle them in a country outside the Middle East. In their
books Assyria was finished and its people no longer existed. The mandates
worked on this line of strategy: 'out of sight, out of mind'. In
desperation, they sought the help of the Iraqi government. The mandates,
jointly with the Iraqi government, decided on the millet provision i.e.,
use of force. As a matter of fact, the central government became very
excited and overly enthusiastic. The Assyrians were ordered to accept the
British-Iraqi conditions, or face military confrontation, punishment, then
literal abandonment to a miserable fate. During the mandated period, most
of the government officials were a mix of ex-Turkish Army officers,
conservative Muslims and ultra-nationalists.
The Assyrian demand for some sort of self-rule was rejected outright. They
were left without subsistence of any kind and forced into a life of
reclusion and obscurity. Several tribal leaders were banished to foreign
lands. They were scattered, cut off from their people and neglected. They
lived a solitary life and died in estrangement like General Agha Patros,
Malik Lawku and Mar Shimun Eshai. A very small number of Assyrian leaders
that succumbed to the pressure of the British, although long forgiven by
the Assyrians, lost credibility and trust of their people. They were
looked at by the Assyrians as vengefully uncompromising. They achieved
nothing of substance for their people.
To isolate the Assyrian groups farther from one another and dissociate
them from their kinfolk and quash their unitary policy, the mandatory
powers, through the League of Nations applied the policy of metonymy. They
not only created division among the Assyrian 'Nestorian' secular and
sectarian leadership but extended it to the Syrianis, Chaldeans and
Jacobites, describing them as Christian minorities, subjects of the
existing states under the 'millet' provision. The ultimate objective of
the mandatory powers was to integrate such 'minority groups' into the
mainstream of the majority Arab occupiers. They gave the Assyrians
territorial and sectarian names to portray them as culturally different,
and in variance with one another, in dialect, denomination and
geographical location. Their aim was to diminish, regionally, the overall
number of the Assyrians, to look numerically insignificant and negligible.
In Iraq, the Assyrian tribal leaders were stripped of their traditional
leadership role. After World War One, their administrative functions were
abolished. Whether hereditary, earned or bestowed upon, selected or
appointed, they had been, until then, the authority that represented their
people. The mandates indicated to the deposed leaders that their former
titles, lost them their political bearing and official recognition. They
were henceforth considered as ordinary men, obliged to conform to the
local laws in all matters of administration which applied to all other
citizens. Members of the Assyrian 'millet' were ordered to deal direct
with local authorities instead of channeling their grievances in their old
customary way through their Assyrian traditional Chiefs and Patriarch. Mar
Shimun's authority was restricted to religious power only. His Holiness,
in addition to his spiritual duties, was naturally concerned over his
people's welfare and well being. His Holiness was advised, by the British
through the Iraqi government, to refer all persons with non-sectarian
civil matters to the local authorities. His Holiness was ordered to
decline audience with Assyrians on secular matters. Such persons were not
to come to His Holiness for advice and arbitration but to report direct to
the local authorities. By limiting the Patriarch's semi-temporal power and
abolishing the tribal law and the traditional titles of the tribal leaders
of Rayyis, Malik and Khawr-Diqna elder, their ruling power came to an end.
The image of the Assyrian officialdom ceased to exist. The chapter of the
semi-political tribal system under which the Assyrians had lived for
centuries was closed. With its closure, the Assyrians lost their political
status. The government willfully deprived the leaders of their leadership
role, considering their titles honorary only. They were considered as
interim residents of foreign affiliation (taba'eyya ajnabiyya) and not
accepted as lawful citizens unless they gave absolute guarantee of loyalty
to the newly created Islamic governments. The Assyrians, in general, were
denied compensation for their territorial losses and their grievances
ignored. Separating the ejected 'Nestorian' Assyrians of Urmia (Iran) and
Hakkari (Turkey) from the 'Chaldean' Assyrians of Mesopotamia (northern
Iraq) and from the (Syriani) Assyrians of Syria, the British Government
described the displaced Assyrians as a bunch of inconsequential primitive
Nestorian peasants.
[TOP]
|
|