The story of violations of human rights in Kurdistan is full of sorrows. This sorrowful story, this open wound, was denied for a very long time, either because it was labeled as a lie and victimization or because sometimes, it was narrated in a way that was too heroic and vague and was hard to believe for the audience. Somewhere on this disastrous land, for many years, people have lived with suppression, prison, torture and executions as part of their daily lives; for numerous reasons, but foremost because of their inevitable resistance. More heartbreaking is that they were accustomed to screaming in silence. Even worse, they were used to hearing the cheers coming from the opposition of the center, which itself is wounded by the suppressive system.
The suppression of the margin areas and small cities was not part of the opposition of the center, i.e., Tehran. The real tragedy was the silence in favor of the endless doubts by the movements and people who were so- called human rights activists and human rights organizations, and it was their duty to report human rights violations. Those who followed their political opinions to lead them to human rights activism were an odd kind of human rights reporters. The watchers were considered “human” if it was one of their own.
Thus, defending the rights of victims of human rights violations was subjected to the victims’ political interest, their way of resistance, and their identity, and specifically the picture that the reporter had in mind of the way the victim thought about territorial integrity. This is how they decided whether the rights of a “human” were violated and needed to be exposed and reported to the public or only when “an armed secessionist” had been punished.
In this view, a victim of human rights violation in Iran was an
imprisoned political or civil rights activist who had peacefully opposed the whole or parts of the ruling system. This victim could not be Kurdish, Arab or Baluch and always, Iran’s territorial integrity has been the red line. Specifically, Kurdish and Baluch people and, in general, “the discordant others” of the imaginary Iranian political society are not considered humans with basic rights in this political take on human rights. For many years, this view has been the guide for the majority of human right reporters and the political/human rights activists of Iran. It has been a beacon for political positioning for many political forces of the opposition and even for most of the independent media based outside of Iran.
Red lines undrawn, yet effective, on the independent media were called the basic principle for “maintaining national unity and avoidance of fanning the flame of ethnic interests.” Thus, the impression that the regular and responsible reports on the repression in areas such as Kurdistan and Baluchistan could exacerbate the secessionist interests in these areas drove the reports and news on the oppression these people faced to the margins. This was inhumane and influenced by politically expedient views on the human rights violations in Iran. In practice, this intensified the divergence and deepened the gap between the center and the margins, and it was moving in the opposite direction of its intended goal. Kurdish, Arab and Baluch victims of suppression naturally interpreted this silence as cooperation and approval. Of course, they could not see a political future in alignment or even tactical cooperation with the claimed opposition, as they did not have a place in a society based on the laws that the human rights reporters had imagined as explained.
In such a seemingly hopeless atmosphere, and even though there were glimpses of hope, establishment of a new human rights organization was a rising sunlight at the end of a long dark tunnel. The birth of Human Rights Activists, HRA, marks the end of politicized and centralized human rights reporting in Iran. Two features of this organization stood out from the early days of its work and heralded a serious and different kind of activism; first, two of its officials were publicly and transparently introduced; second, its reports and news were published in detail and in non-political, human rights language.
In addition to these two points, what differentiated HRA from other real or unreal similar organizations in those years was the volume of news articles it was publishing on the human rights violations of minorities—the same “discordant others.” This high volume of human rights violations specifically in Kurdistan, at first glance, created two visions for the audience; either the authorities of the organization are Kurdish themselves and have easier access to its news and probably they exaggerate in reflecting the truth, or this was only a marketing tactic to get the attention of the audience with news from a region where it was impossible to examine its authenticity.
However, none of the leaders of the HRA were Kurdish, HRA’s method of reflecting and reporting never changed, and nearly none of the news was proven unauthentic or untrue. It was simply that Huan Rights Activists in Iran, HRA, was truly a group of activists who had experienced prison and whose concern was not political orientation. Instead, their objective was fair reporting of human rights violations regardless of the victim’s identity, ethnicity, or religion.
News and periodic reports about Kurdistan were more visible on the HRA’s website, because the number of human rights violations in Kurdistan were very high, and HRA did not want to censor the news and reports. In a short time, many people were drawn to HRA, and as a result, the ability to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of the news increased and so did the speed of publishing the news. That is how the volume of news related to Kurdistan and of course other ethnic minorities increased on the HRA’s website.
HRA’s commitment to human rights principles and avoidance of politicization and standing firm in reporting human rights violations across Iran were highly effective in promoting the organization. HRA’s commitment to explicit and detailed reports on human rights violations in the long term gained the trust of Kurd, Turk, Arab and Baluch audiences to HRA’s website, and thus, they started cooperating with HRA.
The silence about human rights violations in Kurdistan was broken; the reports and news published by HRA were frequently published on other accredited media and organizations’ websites. Thereafter, calling victims of human rights violations “secessionists” or “terrorists” was not a reason to stop reporting on their situation. Everyone’s fundamental human rights should be reported and respected regardless of their political status and their method of activism.
In addition to teaching ears and eyes to bear witness to the wounds of minority and marginalized prisoners, HRA has also effectively forced other human rights activists and organizations to look deeper at their own interests in reporting human rights violations. Today, we no longer see daily news and reports related to Kurdistan, Baluchistan and Khuzestan on almost all serious human rights news agencies resulting in immediate prejudice that the victim is guilty. This is one of the most important things that HRA has achieved.
