Mam Jalal’s Path

Imad Ahmed

Written by Imad Ahmed

Yesterday evening, I was having dinner at home with my wife, children and grandchildren. The table was filled with love, memories and heartfelt conversations — sometimes about everyday life and sometimes about politics.

“Aram's height and appearance resemble those of your youth,” some relatives said. “Aram’s lively nature resembles yours when you were young,” Kak Qubad tells me. [The Kurdish word "Kak" is a title of respect meaning "Mr" or "Sir"]

Aram, my youngest son and our last child, was born on the anniversary of Kak Aram’s martyrdom [Martyr Aram]. Kak Diler and Kak Bakhtiar named him Aram. 

Aram looked at me with sharp, inquisitive eyes and said:
“Dad, I often hear you and your old friends talking about ‘Mam Jalal’s path’. I had met Mam Jalal and even taken pictures with him when I was a child, but I never worked with him politically, so I did not have the chance to understand what that path meant. You were close to Mam Jalal for a long time. Can’t you tell us what his path was?”

I replied:
“Well, let’s finish our meal. Over tea, I will tell you as much as I can.”

After dinner, as our tea was served amid the steam and the scent of memories, I began with a simple question: What is a path?

A path is not merely a collection of beautiful slogans to be repeated on special occasions. Rather, it is a set of principles, values and attitudes that shape political thought and guide action in times of trial. It is the course a leader creates between words and deeds, goals and means, strength and ethics.

Therefore, Mam Jalal’s path cannot be reduced to a particular speech or political stage. It was a combination of thought and practice, revolution and dialogue, Kurdish identity and humanity, leftism and democracy.

The first pillar of this path was Kurdish identity and a belief in the rights of oppressed peoples.

Mam Jalal did not understand Kurdish identity as opposition to other nations. He regarded Kurdish rights as part of the broader struggle for human and national rights. In his path, Kurdish identity was not merely an emotion; it was a responsibility to protect the land, identity and language while recognising the rights of other communities and peoples.

He understood that a people demanding rights for themselves must never forget the rights of others.

The second pillar was leftism and social justice. Mam Jalal’s leftism was not merely a political slogan; it was reflected in his path to labourers, workers, teachers and marginalised communities.

He believed that political freedom was incomplete without equality and social justice. Why should a person have the right to vote but not access to bread? Why should they have the right to speak but not access to hospitals, schools and decent housing?

Mam Jalal believed in a form of socialism compatible with democracy, diversity and public freedoms. In his view, socialism was not simply about state ownership of national wealth; it was about justice, equality of opportunity and the protection of human dignity.

The third pillar was democracy and acceptance of diversity. Mam Jalal was moderate in his expression, but unwavering in his belief in rights and freedoms. His moderate nature was not weakness; it was the art of finding common ground and creating space for solutions.

He often compared politics to a bouquet of flowers: each flower has its own colour, fragrance and beauty, but when brought together, they form an even more beautiful bouquet. Society is not beautiful when it is confined to a single colour; its strength lies in its diversity, provided differences are not turned into hatred and hostility but become a source of enrichment and progress.

Mam Jalal did not merely speak about democracy; he practised it in his daily conduct. He accepted criticism and was not afraid to criticise. “If you have any criticism, start with me,” he would often tell us during meetings.

This reflected his belief that a leader must first be willing to question and evaluate himself. A party that does not listen to criticism cannot recognise its mistakes, while a leader who avoids criticism gradually becomes distanced from both the people and the truth.

Mam Jalal’s path was also a path of dialogue. He spoke with friends, rivals and even enemies — not because he forgot their differences, but because he understood that politics is the art of transforming conflict into possible solutions.

A belief in women’s rights and their role in society was also an essential part of this approach. In his view, women were not merely half of society; they were key contributors to politics and to shaping the future. A society that excludes women from rights and decision-making cannot claim to stand for freedom and progress.

An intellectual summary of this path can be found in the booklet "Why the PUK?" The pamphlet does not merely address the question of establishing a political organisation; rather, it serves as an intellectual document outlining what the PUK should be, whom it should represent and what kind of society it should struggle for.

Another dimension of Mam Jalal’s path was political realism, alliance-building and tolerance. He was firm in his fundamental goals, but flexible and realistic in his choice of methods. For him, politics was not a field of revenge; it was the art of turning a rival into a negotiating partner and yesterday’s enemy into a partner in finding solutions.

Of course, Mam Jalal’s path has many other dimensions and characteristics that cannot be explored in this short article. This is merely an attempt to open the door to broader research and discussion.

In essence, the PUK in its original form represented Mam Jalal’s path — a PUK that serves as a refuge for labourers, intellectuals, women, young people, farmers and workers. A PUK in which the word “patriotic” is reflected not only in its slogans, but also in its conduct, decisions and service to the people.

Mam Jalal’s path is not something to be discussed only during commemorations and anniversaries. It remains alive when it is translated into action, adapted to the changing circumstances of the times and used to address the questions facing new generations.

Aram’s question was not merely my son’s question; it is the question of every new generation: Where does Mam Jalal’s path find expression in our lives and politics today? How can it respond to the challenges facing young people, women and society, including unemployment, migration, injustice and declining public trust?

The answers to these questions cannot be fully explored in a single article. The relevant institutions within the PUK, in collaboration with universities and research centres, should document and analyse the principles of Mam Jalal’s path in a systematic and scholarly manner. His speeches, letters, decisions and political positions, together with the experiences and testimonies of his friends and colleagues, should be compiled in a dedicated volume.

Such a book should not merely recount Mam Jalal’s life; it should also present the principles of his path and how they can be applied by new generations.

When I finished speaking, the tea had grown cold, but Aram’s question was still burning. I realised that Mam Jalal’s path could not be explained in a single evening over tea.

I had merely opened a door. For if a path is confined to books and memories, it becomes history. But if it continues to shape thought and action and to answer the questions of new generations, it becomes the future.