Kemal Tahir’in “Yorgun Savaşçı” ve “Rahmet Yolları Kesti” Romanlarında Eşkıyalık Teması (1919-1939)
Ercan UyanıkBu çalışmada özgün fikirleri ve titiz çalışmaları ile Türk Edebiyatı’nda önemli bir yere sahip olan Kemal Tahir’in, eşkıyalık olgusu hakkındaki düşünceleri ele alınmıştır. Yazarın “Yorgun Savaşçı” ve “Rahmet Yolları Kesti” adlı romanlarındaki “eşkıyalık teması” incelenmiştir. Edebi anlamda köy romanının ayrılmaz bir parçası olarak ele alınan eşkıyalık olgusu, pek çok romancı tarafından “sosyal eşkıyalık” çerçevesinde değerlendirilmiştir. Bu hususta Kemal Tahir, aykırı bir fikir benimsemesi sebebiyle farklı bir yere sahiptir. Yazar, köyü ele aldığı tüm romanlarında eşkıyalık olgusu üzerinde durmakla birlikte, “Rahmet Yolları Kesti” adlı romanı bu bakımdan en çok tartışılan eseri olmuştur. Benzer bir durum eşkıyalık bağlamında olmasa da “Yorgun Savaşçı” romanı için de yaşanmış, o dönemde büyük tartışma konusu haline gelmiştir. Söz konusu bu iki roman yayımlandıkları ilk zamanlarda ideolojik çerçevede ele alınmışlardır. Bu sebeple ne yazar ne de eserlerinin günümüze değin hak ettiği değeri bulamadıkları gözlenmiştir.
The Theme of Banditry in Kemal Tahir’s Novels “Yorgun Savaşçı” and “Rahmet Yolları Kesti” (1919-1939)
Ercan UyanıkIn this study, the thoughts of Kemal Tahir, who has an important place in Turkish literature with his original ideas and meticulous studies, on the phenomenon of banditry are discussed. The “banditry theme” in the author’s novels “Yorgun Savaşçı” and “Rahmet Yolları Kesti” is analyzed. The phenomenon of banditry, which is considered as an integral part of the village novel in literary terms, has been evaluated by many novelists within the framework of “social banditry”. In this regard, Kemal Tahir has a special place due to his adoption of a contrary idea. Although the author emphasizes the phenomenon of banditry in all his novels dealing with the village, his novel “Rahmet Yolları Kesti” has been the most discussed work in this respect. A similar situation was experienced in the novel “Yorgun Savaşçı”, although not in the context of banditry, and it became the subject of great debate at the time. When these two novels were first published, they were discussed within an ideological framework. For this reason, it has been observed that neither the author nor his works have found the value they deserve until today
Kemal Tahir holds a significant position in the annals of Turkish literature and intellectual discourse. His life’s dedication revolved around delving into the intricacies of the nation’s realities. Utilizing novels as a medium, he sought to communicate both history and reality. His perspectives on historical and social matters have been subjects of deliberation within intellectual and literary circles. An enduring topic of discussion has been Kemal Tahir’s stance on banditry. Central to his main thesis is the argument that a bandit “cannot be a hero”, portraying banditry as a social phenomenon. Although banditry is subtly alluded to in many of his village-themed novels, this study accentuates his views through an examination of the novels “Yorgun Savaşçı” and “Rahmet Yolları Kesti”. The former unfolds during the National Struggle era, marked by the absence of state authority, revealing the widespread prevalence of banditry. The latter, set in the mid-1930s concurrent with the establishment of the Ankara Government and the solidification of state authority, is noteworthy for its portrayal of a bandit narrative. In both of Kemal Tahir’s novels, various individual and societal elements pertinent to the genesis of banditry are underscored. These elements encapsulate the author’s overarching perspectives on the phenomenon. According to the author, the notion of appreciating honest bandits is a concept proposed by “semi-intellectuals” resulting from an evaluation that is detached from Anatolian cultural norms. It remains nothing more than a folkloric imagination. Bandits, or robbers, are individuals with a low sense of social morality, displaying cowardice, susceptibility to manipulation by others, aversion to work, and an inability to do anything other than feign. There is a certain period of banditry. Banditry is the product of a period of turmoil and war. The most decisive factor in the emergence of banditry is the power of the state. If the state is strong in the political, economic and military fields, it does not last long even if bandit movements are seen. Banditry arises from a combination of factors, including the pursuit of notoriety, a desire for bravery, avarice for monetary gain, and other individual motives. The perpetuation of banditry is further influenced by the populace’s fear and mistrust of the state, with the continuation of such activities contingent upon the strength or weakness of the state. In instances where villagers perceive a lack of power, there is a tendency to idealize bandits, portraying them as heroes and transforming them into legendary figures. The allegiance of a bandit aligns with the stronger party, manipulated by those individuals. Kemal Tahir equated banditry with theft, positing that it does not manifest in a well-ordered and fearless society. In societies undergoing moral decay, banditry tends to emerge, and the admiration for banditry persists.
In conclusion, as we intricately intertwined the bandit phenomenon depicted in Kemal Tahir’s novels “Yorgun Savaşçı” and “Rahmet Yolları Kesti” with the author’s perspectives within the realms of both Turkish literature and historical reality, it becomes evident that Kemal Tahir faced substantial criticism throughout his lifetime. The true essence of what the author aimed to convey remains challenging to assess objectively. The limited recognition bestowed upon his views and literary persona in the 20th century has contributed to certain challenges confronting Turkish society today. Presently, there is a more objective approach to the author. Nevertheless, it remains challenging to surpass comparisons with Yaşar Kemal, particularly concerning the concept of banditry. Currently, we find significant parallels between the author’s viewpoint on banditry and historical actualities. This circumstance calls for an assessment of his novels not solely in the context of banditry but also with regard to other historical and literary facets, free from comparisons and biases. Kemal Tahir has bequeathed a substantial legacy contributing to our comprehension of the challenges in literature, art, and society in the 21st century. The extent to which we can preserve, convey, and transmit this heritage to new generations will be highly valued.
