The conflicts associated with Sheikh Said, Mount Ararat and Dersim shared a struggle over state power and Kurdish society, but differed in leadership, organisation and the targeting of civilians. Their histories should be compared without collapsing them into one revolt.

Snow-covered Greater Ararat on the right and the smaller volcanic cone on the left, above green fields and rocky ground on the Ararat Plain
Ararat viewed from Armenia, 21 June 2014. Photograph by Vyacheslav Argenberg. This modern landscape locates the mountain setting; it does not show the 1920s rebellion. Copyright Vyacheslav Argenberg, 21 June 2014 - CC BY 4.0.

A comparison needs more than three dates

The early Turkish Republic sought greater control over regions with different languages, religious traditions and relationships to central government. Kurdish political actors also differed: religious leadership, tribal authority, former officers and intellectuals in exile did not form a single organisation. The three conflicts are connected histories of centralisation and resistance. Their differences matter just as much, especially when distinguishing armed insurgents from communities subjected to killing or forced removal.

Sheikh Said, 1925: overlapping motives and emergency rule

Sheikh Said’s movement combined Kurdish political networks with religious opposition to the new order. Radpey discusses Azadi’s role, uneven participation and the relationship between nationalist aims and demands concerning Islamic government. Said was captured on 15 April and executed in Diyarbakır on 29 June 1925. [1] Law 578, adopted on 4 March while the uprising was underway, authorised government prohibitions against organisations, activities and publications considered threats to order, with referral to an Independence Court. Its initial duration was two years. [2] Defeat and exceptional government therefore developed together.

Ararat: local resistance and an organisation in exile

The Ararat movement acquired a wider political framework through Xoybûn, established in Lebanon in October 1927. Jordi Tejel describes an alliance of intellectuals, former officers, religious figures and tribal leaders. Ihsan Nuri directed military forces, while Bro Heski Tello held a civilian leadership role. A flag, newspaper and administrative claims expressed a project of Kurdish government. [3] These state-building claims should be distinguished from secure international recognition. The mountain frontier mattered: Karabalık documents Turkish complaints, Iranian denials and cross-border movement, followed by renewed negotiations and the Turkey–Iran boundary agreement of 23 January 1932. The agreement came after the rebellion’s defeat in 1930. [4]

Zilan belongs in the civilian history of 1930

Military defeat at Ararat does not encompass everything that happened in the surrounding region. In his historical essay, Sedat Ulugana describes bombing, village destruction, mass killing of civilians and subsequent displacement in the Zilan area near Erciş during summer 1930. He compares press reports, testimony and later restrictions on return. [5] His account also presents differing numerical claims; this overview does not convert one figure into an uncontested total. Zilan requires attention to civilian victims and local aftermath, rather than a passing reference to battlefield losses.

Dersim: an exceptional administration before the campaign

Dersim’s Alevi population and local authorities had a different relationship with Ankara from Said’s Sunni religious networks or Xoybûn’s exile organisation. Law 2884 was adopted on 25 December 1935 and published on 2 January 1936. It combined the provincial governorship with military command and the Fourth Inspectorate. It allowed at most two days to prepare a defence and made criminal judgments final without appeal. [6] The administrative framework therefore preceded the fighting of 1937. It should not be described as a law improvised after Seyid Riza’s resistance began.

Dersim, 1937–38: resistance and mass violence

Hans-Lukas Kieser distinguishes the clashes and military operations of 1937 from the expanded violence of 1938. Seyid Riza was in custody and executed in 1937; he did not lead the following year’s campaign. Kieser describes mass killings and forced removals that also reached communities which had cooperated with the government or had not joined the resistance. [7] Calling the entire period a rebellion can obscure those civilians. The terms massacre, forced assimilation and genocide belong to a historical and interpretive debate; naming that debate does not make every use of the terms an identical legal finding.

What can be compared—and what cannot

Artillery, aircraft, administrative coercion and unequal military resources belong to the comparison, alongside divided local alliances and failed external appeals. Olson’s published abstract treats the Sheikh Said rebellion as significant for both Kurdish and Turkish nationalism and places aviation within wider regional repression. [8] It does not justify a claim that these conflicts alone created the Turkish Air Force. Nor did Kurdish political life simply disappear until the 1970s: Tejel follows Xoybûn activity and nationalist argument after military defeat. [3] The strongest comparison traces changing institutions and civilian consequences while preserving the differences between each conflict.

Sources and further reading

  1. Loqman Radpey, “Kurdistan on the Sèvres Centenary”, Nationalities Papers 50/6 (2022), pp. 1187–1216, DOI 10.1017/nps.2021.32: relevant 1925 passages.
  2. Grand National Assembly of Turkey, Law 578, Takrir-i Sükûn Kanunu, 4 March 1925, original text, Articles 1–3.
  3. Jordi Tejel Gorgas, La Ligue nationale kurde Khoyboun: mythes et réalités, Études kurdes, hors-série III (2007), especially pp. 7–9 and 18–21; consulted text, linked institutional catalogue.
  4. Kamuran Karabalık, “Ağrı İsyanlarında İran’ın Rolü (1926–1930)”, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 27/2 (2025), pp. 756–769, DOI 10.32709/akusosbil.1317306, especially pp. 765–766.
  5. Sedat Ulugana, “Bir katliamın anatomisi: 1930 Zilan”, Bianet, 20 July 2024, updated 25 July: historical essay discussing documents, testimony and civilian aftermath.
  6. Grand National Assembly of Turkey, Law 2884 on Tunceli administration, adopted 25 December 1935, published 2 January 1936, especially Articles 1, 28 and 29.
  7. Hans-Lukas Kieser, “Dersim Massacre, 1937–1938”, Sciences Po, Mass Violence and Resistance, 27 July 2011: context, victims and interpretation.
  8. Robert Olson, “The Sheikh Said Rebellion: Its Impact on the Development of the Turkish Air Force”, Journal of Kurdish Studies 1 (1995), pp. 77–83, DOI 10.2143/JKS.1.0.519228: publisher’s abstract consulted.