THE BLOSSOMING OF THE UNIVERSAL WOMEN’S REVOLUTION IN THE 21ST CENTURY:

THE ROJAVA WOMEN’S REVOLUTION

In this long critical and self-critical analysis, Pelşîn Tolhildan, member of the KJK (Kurdistan Women's Communities) Executive Council contextualizes the latest developments in Rojava and Syria in terms of their world historical and women's historical significance.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, the people of the region managed to build their autonomous structures in the middle of war and counter-revolutionary attacks. At the same time, there are many lessons to be drawn from this historic experience.

On January 6, 2026, the military attacks launched against the Kurdish-populated neighborhoods of Şexmeqsud and Eşrefiye in Aleppo by the forces of the Damascus Interim Government, in partnership with DAESH (also known as ISIS) and remnants, as well as the Turkish state, spread across North and East Syria, bringing Rojava back onto the global agenda.

Over the past decade, "Rojava" and "Rojava Revolution" have been heard around the world. Tens of millions of people have, in one way or another, come into contact with these terms, influenced them, and been impacted by them. For some, this became a source of inspiration as the revived and living form of a revolution once left unfinished, a dreamt-of egalitarian, free, and communal life realized again. It revived and ignited excitement and enthusiasm. On the other hand, for certain groups and forces, it was the rekindling of a fire believed to have been extinguished, rising again from its ashes, becoming an occasion for fear and hatred.

The revolution in Rojava is not only one that excites and mobilizes emotions, but also one that has generated significant movement in thought, from its definition to its character. It would be appropriate to call it a revolution that provokes thought. So what was the Rojava Revolution that affected so many people, states, organizations, women, youth, revolutionaries —drawing some toward it while frightening others?

Many individuals from different segments have attempted to define and name the social struggle experience of Rojava. Some have called this experience of social freedom struggle a social revolution.  Pointing to the women’s revolution, cooperative economy, grassroots democracy, and co-chair system, some defined the commune and council system in Rojava as a “revolutionary experiment.” Debates emerged on whether the experience in Rojava constitutes a “real" revolution. Some described it as a “limited" revolution, yet others portrayed Rojava as a “wartime governance.” Others expressed the view that it could be a model in the search for “politics without a state,” a “project of social transformation.” There were also those who analyzed it as a revolutionary laboratory and field of experimentation in the 21st century. Of course, the definitions of Abdullah Öcalan are also important in this regard, because his thought and leadership prepared the Rojava experience through fifty years of great effort. His definition is the “Freedom Revolution of Rojava Kurdistan.”

These questions—as well as many others, definitions, and analyses—are valid for all people’s revolutions and social revolutions. Even more than a hundred years after they took place, major revolutions continue to be analyzed: What were their strengths? What similarities did they experience? Why did they lose?

This also applies to the Rojava Revolution, which is a revolution centered on women, and it seems likely that discussions around it will continue to develop for a long time among different circles. If we were to attempt to list or discover the definitions of the Rojava experience made by academic circles, politicians, various relevant actors, feminist and women’s liberation movements, and many individuals concerned with it, this would take months and could become the subject of a book rather than a single article. One must take into consideration that people's intellectual and emotional formations and positions, as well as moments in time play a role in the articulation of analyses. After all, revolutions or experiences of social struggle often are endangered or fail, which can lead to shifts in perspective.

Yet, the fact that the Rojava Revolution has been embraced globally at least two or three times over the past fifteen years proves that it has something universal to it. Without becoming trapped in the definition of “revolution,” what are the characteristics of the Rojava experience that we can embrace fearlessly?

The purpose of this text is not to define the Rojava revolution. With this text, I will attempt to interpret and define the women’s revolution—or the women’s freedom experience—within the Rojava experience through certain aspects. I will try to explore the question: “Why has the Rojava revolution been characterized as a revolution of women, peoples, and youth?” 

Although analyzing social experiences while they are still unfolding has both advantages and disadvantages, I will attempt to do so. Because women’s labor in Rojava is a collective labor, analyses by women from different geographies and different peoples are also emerging and will continue to develop further.

The roots and seeds of the revolution

Rojava is a revolution that has waged a struggle for life and existence for nearly 15 years within the crisis of the Middle East. This struggle for life and existence, as in all people’s revolutions, has been carried out against both internal and external reactionary forces. In the development and achievements of this revolution, the theses of Abdullah Öcalan on democratic civilization, the democratic nation, and democratic confederalism; the paradigm of democratic modernity; and the perspectives of Jineolojî and ecology have been decisive.

First of all, this experience and social revolution—I have thus chosen my own definition and aligned myself with the definition of Öcalan and a very broad segment of society—definitely took place under women’s leadership. Is this an obvious difference from other revolutions? In one sense, no, because in all revolutions around the world millions of women contributed labor, provided leadership, and offered their colors to the revolution. Is it different? Yes—through the co-chair system and the thesis of Hevjiyana Azad (free co-life, a movement term), and in terms of the scope and continuity of women’s level of organization. It is also different because the nearly 40-year background and labor of women’s leadership have been woven by Öcalan, broad segments of society, and women themselves.

In one respect, the Rojava Social Revolution is a product of the conditions of war in Syria and is similar to other revolutions, which Öcalan expresses as follows: “When the civil war developed in Syria, the Rojava Revolutionary Forces took advantage of these conditions and realized the Rojava Kurdistan Freedom Revolution. When the histories of revolutions are examined—how they develop and how they are realized—everything can be seen very clearly in this sense. Revolutions are achieved by intervening in historical situations, opportunities, and possibilities.”[1]

In this sense, there may have been aspects that can be compared with the Soviet and Chinese revolutions. In other words, in one sense, conditions emerged and revolutionary forces evaluated them and realized the revolution. These processes are more or less known as recent historical developments in the context of the Middle East and Syria. Yet on the other hand, before the realization of this revolution there existed many years of multifaceted and concentrated labor, struggle, and accumulation. Although the revolution evaluated the opportunities that emerged in 2011–2012, its main source was this immense labor that preceded it. Even though there are similarities with the Russian and Chinese revolutions, the Rojava experience has a particular difference: Rojava is the part of Kurdistan in Syria where Öcalan lived for twenty years, from the late 1970s until the late 1990s. To understand the foundations of the revolution that developed in this region and the reasons for its strong popular ownership, it is very important to examine the experience of ERNK (Eniya Rizgariya Netewa Kurdistan – Kurdistan National Liberation Front), in whose organization he played a decisive role. Because within this experience, thousands of seeds of the Rojava Revolution were planted.

Communal life is also fundamental in this experience. The struggle and search to place women’s perspective and color at the center is essential. Children, youth, the elderly, women, and men all have their specific places and forms of organization within this front; everyone could participate according to their strength and in their own uniqueness. The place where the ERNK experience was most strongly made into a lived reality was Rojava. The first roots of the co-chair system, communes, and people’s councils (from villages and neighborhoods to districts and cities) were organized and practiced in Rojava during the years Öcalan stayed there. In the formation, operation, and decision-making mechanisms of these roots, women were continuously prepared for equal and leading positions from the early 1990s onward; they experienced this in practice and created a culture and accumulated values of a women-centered struggle for freedom. In other words, Öcalan opened and prepared the lands of Rojava for a revolution of women and peoples through the tremendous struggle he carried out there 30–40 years ago.

The many Mala Jin (women's houses), the YPJ (Women's Protection Units), Kongra Star, the Zenobya Women’s Councils, and many other women’s organizations that developed during the Rojava revolution are the products of these accumulated values and of this culture of women’s freedom that has been developed. This reality is reflected in the stance of thousands of women who have participated in the Rojava experience and taken leading roles in fields such as self-defense, culture and arts, media and publishing, economy, ecology, diplomacy, education, Jineolojî, justice and law, health, and politics. Being aware from the very beginning of the truth he helped create and of its far-reaching effects, Öcalan made the following assessments:

“It can be seen how Kurdish women have created developments and influence not only in Kurdistan but also in Turkey, the Middle East, and—together with the Rojava Revolution—throughout the world. The willpower and liberation of women have created, and will create, very great social and historical consequences. At present, Kurdish women, under the leadership of the Kurdistan Women’s Freedom Movement, have become pioneers for women in the region and in the world. The development of women’s freedom and the constant rise of its level of achievement are leading women—especially in Kurdistan and Turkey, but also across the Middle East and the world—to participate more intensively, deeply, and broadly in political and social struggles. This has begun to overturn the existing social order, social relations, and the political system. From now on this process will continue to develop and deepen.”[1]

This revolution is in fact not only the Rojava Women’s Revolution. To call it the Women’s Revolution of North and East Syria and Rojava would be more accurate geographically, in order to recognize the labor and sacrifices of Arab, Syriac, Assyrian, Armenian, Turkmen, Circassian, and Chechen women who contributed to this struggle. In fact, if we examine the profile of the women who joined this revolution, even if we give it this geographical name, in meaning and in lived reality this revolution is the revolution of women around the world. Rojava did not become only the revolution of Kurdish, Arab, or Middle Eastern women. It addressed women all over the world, drew them into it; they too paid a price and embraced it. In the 21st century, the core of the universal women’s revolution became the Kurdistan Women’s Freedom Struggle. Even though its primary space was the mountains, it became socialized, popularized, and universalized. Yet the place where this core sharpened and blossomed even further was the Rojava Women’s Revolution. Women from many countries joined this revolution; they fought relentlessly, gave their labor, created values, and gave their lives. Even today, hundreds of women from very different parts of the world are joining this struggle and taking active leadership roles. The Rojava Women’s Revolution carries the reality expressed in a graffiti in Iran: “The revolution is a woman’s home, because she has nowhere else to stay.”

If we were to give this article a title such as “The Differences Created and the Unfulfilled Aspects of the Rojava Women’s Revolution,” a long analysis that exceeds the limits of this text would emerge. Yet as women, on the basis of Jineolojî, we must be able to remain objective and confront our own mistakes. Even at the very moment I am writing these lines, a relentless, multi-layered war continues in Rojava and across Syria. Severe economic embargoes and siege, the disregard for freedom of the press, heavy attacks on civilian settlements, captivity, rape, women sold in slave markets, torture in prisons, mutilated bodies, and the sharp struggle for survival of hundreds of thousands of displaced people in freezing weather and with insufficient food—all of these continue to be lived as naked realities that pierce to the marrow of human beings. These truths, of course, lead us to focus on defending the revolution of the women and peoples of Rojava. The Kurdish Women’s Freedom Struggle has always fought for existence and freedom under such harsh conditions of war. Abdullah Öcalan, beginning with the Women’s Liberation Ideology in the late 1990s, discussed with women and men militants many women-centered liberation projects under the most difficult conditions of war and struggle and developed them as perspectives: "killing the man", "transforming the man", "the project of free life", the "Theory of Rupture", "women’s army-fication", and "women’s party formation". Militants—especially women—also tried under these conditions to understand, internalize, and make these perspectives part of life.

A response against the theft of the spirit of time

When analyzing the “Rojava Freedom Revolution,” an important dimension we must constantly keep in mind is the spirit of the time in which the revolution took place. The Rojava revolution—and the women’s revolution within it—has an extremely significant meaning for the women’s freedom struggle. DAESH emerged (or rather, was brought forth) onto the stage of history—an entity that synthesized the tyrannical, brutal, and most ruthless aggressions of war of all times, and which was not the product of a single state but rather introduced as a jointly manufactured product of international powers. This machine of death, torture, and brutality blew the dark breath of fear into the spirit of the time. It attempted to ferment soullessness, mercilessness, and ugliness into the fabric of the era. On these ancient lands, humanity was being forced to devour its own flesh—so that it would betray the roots and origins that created all the fundamental values of human civilization: religion, art, language and culture, science and philosophy.

Although DAESH was presented as if it had emerged from a reactionary force belonging to these lands, it had in fact been born from the mind of a higher international power. Its recklessness, cruelty, and amoral character devoid of ethics also builds on the legacy of many other statist and power-centered traditions. And it carried a mentality—a dark gaze—hostile to peoples, to women, to children, and to the diverse colors and beliefs of society. It dumped darkness into the spirit of the time; states and armies could not stand against it—they fled, scattered, and collapsed.

But in Rojava there was a people who had sworn for more than forty years to weave time with the spirit of freedom. They possessed a culture of freedom and resistance whose roots stretched back thousands of years. The maternal commune and communal traditions had strong veins in these lands. Kurdish women were weaving Azadî (freedom) with the thousands-year-old Kurdish philosophy of Jin (woman)–Jiyan (life). The darkness of DAESH was defeated by these marvellously shining women.

The most fundamental characteristic of the Rojava Revolution and the Rojava Women’s Revolution—the one that must be defended sincerely and wholeheartedly, and embraced with a sense of sacred responsibility—is precisely this: at a revolutionary moment when the spirit of the times was being infused with darkness, they sought to become a light and to shape that spirit with freedom, one of humanity’s most essential values.

If we translate this into a contemporary political language, we can say: the Rojava Women’s Revolution—the Rojava Revolution—did not occur in just any time or geography. It emerged in Syria, the very space where the Third World War in the Middle East had reached its most intense stage. This meant that all the hegemonic powers of the world were present in this arena. In other words, it was not only DAESH that was spreading darkness on Syrian soil; many of the forces that had enabled its emergence were also present there—with their intelligence services, armies, NGOs, and agents.

Abdullah Öcalan evaluates this situation as follows: “In Syria, the Third World War is unfolding in its most intense, deepened, and complex form… this war represents the most strategic phase of the Third World War. The Rojava Revolution also took place during this period. Therefore, the position of the Rojava Revolution must be analyzed and understood within this context.”

For this reason, women in Rojava made history by defeating DAESH. They wove the spirit of the time with freedom and with love; they turned toward it, devoted themselves to it, and paid prices that are almost impossible to describe. They became martyrs, they were wounded, they were taken prisoner, they were tortured and murdered. Yet they succeeded in taking the spirit of the time away from those who wished to breathe DAESH’s dark breath into it.

In the most recent attacks on Rojava, the gangs of DAESH and HTS cutting women’s braids to stage their own spectacle, attacking the bodies of wounded and fallen women, humiliating captured fighters, and trafficking women are attempts to avenge the defeat they suffered ten years ago. However, no matter what they do, they cannot change the reality—witnessed by the entire world—that under the leadership of Kurdish women, women in Rojava–North and East Syria have written history. This truth cannot be taken back or erased. It has influenced women and humanity across the world. It has triggered the dynamics of a global women’s revolution. This power of influence and activation remains alive; it continues to transform, change, and move societies—and will continue to do so throughout the development of the women’s revolution.

The Rojava Women’s Revolution has taken its place in the collective memory of women. Erasing this memory is impossible. The spirit, color, and energy of the Rojava Revolution today live on in women’s movements in many countries around the world. The creation of this impact was made possible by thousands of women who put their lives on the line. Just as in the 20th century the spirits of tens of thousands of women who led revolutions and popular movements across many continents—who fell as martyrs in the struggle to build an honorable, free, and democratic world—found new life in the YPJ and in the Rojava Women’s Revolution, so too the women from many peoples who took part in the Rojava Revolution, by dedicating their lives, enduring great sacrifices, and surviving profound tragedies, have breathed life into the hearts and spirits of women in many parts of the world. As they have in every era, women insist on the art of breathing life and spirit into one another.

Making sense of the counter-revolution

When we analyze the Rojava Women’s Revolution with a critical perspective alongside all these resilient and positive values, one of our central arguments concerns the tools, methods, policies, tactics, alliances, and relationships of the revolutionary, libertarian, and democratic struggle. It is important that we address these with the depth provided by the sciences of politics, sociology, history, and philosophy. In the Century of the Women’s Revolution in the 21st century, perhaps the scientific discipline in which we must be strongest is politics itself.

Philosophers such as Hannah Arendt encouraged us to think freely and courageously, in light of our present needs. Arendt evaluated whether opening space for politics and practicing politics leads to totalitarianism, and argued that “politics liberates.” She expended tremendous intellectual energy to understand the roots of social problems.

As women, while gaining our consciousness of existence and identity, we must focus on the relationship between existence and freedom. For in most parts of the world, the systematic attacks directed at women’s existence have for years taken place at the level of war. In this sense, women everywhere must construct their primary strategies on the basis of protecting, defending, securing, and liberating their existence. This is the essence and the central axis of the women’s revolution.

A women’s struggle that fails to achieve this is unsuccessful; in fact, it is not a revolution at all. Our main task as women is to secure social life itself by making our existence strong, organized, and free. The importance of correctly understanding and practicing the relationship between individual freedom and social freedom—a relationship that mutually nourishes and necessitates each other—has once again become clear with the latest developments that have taken place in Rojava since January 2026.

We have once again experienced in the concrete case of Rojava that counter-revolutionary forces never truly digest a revolution; that they never forget or forgive that the revolution has changed lives, harmed their interests, and taken away their privileges. When this is read through the sociology and history of the Middle East and of Syria, a much deeper sense of resentment, hatred, and desire for revenge toward revolutionary forces becomes evident. And if this revolution is women-centered, the anger grows even stronger. The ability to read these sociological and historical codes, and to interpret them both through their roots and their contemporary manifestations, is itself a form and power of self-defense. In fact, the idea that politics is the art of liberation is grounded in this power of knowing.

Where will the danger come from? Where are the risks, when and how will they emerge, and by which forces will attempts be organized to suffocate the revolution? Such questions are the central concentration point for making existence meaningful, free, and sustainable. And they are the pillar of self-defense.

The developments of January 2026 are still fresh, and some of their aspects have not yet become clear. In this sense, as the Rojava Women’s Revolution passes through one of its most critical, risky, and dangerous turning points, we cannot approach it cheaply, superficially, or irresponsibly by being merely critical. However, one naked and undeniable truth now stares us directly in the face: the Rojava Women’s Revolution, which has lived and inspired hope until today, must strengthen self-defense in feelings, in the mind, in organization, and in all dimensions of life in a much more organized way.

In this regard, for the fate of revolutions—and even more so for women’s revolutions—deepening in political science, being foresighted, and conducting objective analyses by correctly following political developments in the country, the region, and the world are also part of our self-defense. When this is done correctly, we protect our lives, our existence, and our freedoms. Because if we read politics correctly, we can organize our reflexes, our intellectual strength, and our emotional power more effectively. We can realize our actions with a radical essence, creative diversity, and above all in ways that create political weight.

Women’s revolutionary forces must be able to observe, define, identify, and share emerging political balances not only after they have formed and settled—or after their consolidation has strengthened—but also while these balances are still in the process of formation and development. Every argument must be addressed through a political–ideological perspective and interpreted in terms of its effects on the women’s revolution.

From our analyses of the Rojava Women’s Revolution, and from the attacks directed against it—including not only the intense attacks of the past month but also the uninterrupted attacks that have continued for 15 years—I believe we must draw certain fundamental conclusions. Especially when we consider the most recent developments, it has once again become clear how vital it is for revolutionary forces, their allies, and all sectors of society—women above all—to be able to foresee the plans, ways of thinking, and concepts of the hegemonic powers of the world system, both in their declared and undeclared dimensions.

It is necessary for the pioneers, friends, and sympathizers of the Rojava Women’s Revolution to develop a much stronger capacity to read world politics at universal, continental, and regional levels. With these recent events, we have understood more clearly that it is not enough to read or interpret only the country in which we live and its surrounding region. Policies are developed at the global level.

The U.S. National Security Strategy and Defense Strategy, publicly announced, provide important insight about how hegemonic powers view the world and what they are planning. Women living anywhere in the world who believe in the struggle for women’s freedom are affected by these plans in one way or another—indeed, everyone is affected, whether politically engaged or not. This occurs continuously, interconnectedly, holistically, and on a global scale. Understanding these frameworks gives us significant advantages.

The calculations of hegemonic powers expressed through the framework of U.S. security policy have struck Rojava and Syria, struck Palestine, devastated Ukraine over the past few years, taken over the development and operation rights of the Zangezur Corridor between Azerbaijan and Armenia for 99 years, seized Venezuela, threatened all of Abya Yala, declared the intention to take Greenland, manipulated popular uprisings in Iran according to their own pragmatist ambitions—and many more examples could be given. Every day, every moment, somewhere is being struck or could be struck. For this reason, among the sciences that the forces of the women’s freedom struggle must take most seriously, politics stands at the forefront. Competent readings, interpretations, and foresight in this field—as well as correct practical action at the right time and place—are of crucial importance.

One of the strengths that the ability to read these policies will give us is this: to multiply the revolution within ourselves and within our surroundings, within our society. A revolution that multiplies, spreads, grows, and takes root in minds and spirits cannot be prevented; it cannot be defeated. What does it mean to multiply the revolution? What does it mean to multiply the women’s revolution within ourselves? Although this is a subject that requires multidimensional reflection and debate, I would like to outline it briefly here.

Whatever we may call it—revolution and revolutionary practice, radical democracy, freedom, social transformation, or the search for communal life—none of it can multiply without individuals perceiving, understanding, and embodying it in their lives. The capacity to perceive, learn, and strengthen knowledge and experience concerning all areas of life must first be developed within ourselves. We must first succeed within ourselves in politicizing and socializing our emotional world—one that develops through our power of thought and interpretation—in a healthy manner. Achieving this, despite all the ugliness of this age, is not only about surviving; it is also about multiplying the revolution within ourselves.

There are historical moments when the revolution, the belief in social, democratic, and libertarian transformation, and the passion for change remain alive in a single individual. The feeling, belief, and thought that remain alive in that one individual, when they find suitable soil, sprout, multiply, and gift the revolution to humanity and to societies. There are many examples of this. In revolutions within the world of science, in social transformations, in breakthroughs that open new thresholds, this act of multiplication is decisive.

Every woman who is strong in any field must multiply herself. In my opinion, this is the most valuable, magical, and effective weapon for the liberation and survival of the world and of societies—I might even call it the feminine fortune. For an individual to recognize her own potential, organize it, make it productive and share it, and generate this potential power in other individuals—that is multiplication.

Perhaps instead of giving birth to children in this cursed world—on a planet where child-rapists like the Epsteins, the visible faces of monstrous power, dominate—we must adopt such an alternative form of multiplication. This is of vital importance. On this basis, we must constantly ask ourselves: What radical transformation, change, revolution, and democratization does this age impose in which fields? How will this be achieved? And we must discover the areas in which we can multiply ourselves.

The meanings, thoughts, and feelings that we first produce within ourselves and then share will nourish our philosophy of free life, which is the unshakable main source of the women’s revolution. Multiplying revolution, freedom, and consciousness within ourselves—and reaching new horizons and conceptual openings—will also provide us with new doors, paths, and methods for leaving the life axis of the capitalist system and hegemonic masculinity (which, more accurately, is an axis of death).

The existence of women, which is under threat everywhere in the world, is many times more threatened in geographies such as the Middle East, where wars have been imposed almost as a destiny over the last two centuries. Not only during these most recent developments, but the Rojava Women’s Revolution and the Kurdistan Women’s Freedom Struggle from which it draws inspiration have always been carried out under intense conditions of war. In this sense, they possess tremendous experience in the field of self-defense and legitimate defense. However, the recent developments have also revealed certain weaknesses and gaps. We must analyze these objectively.

The need for criticism and self-criticism

What is this weakness or gap? It is the interruption of self-defense and its requirements in the mistaken complacency of thinking that “the revolution has happened, everything is complete.” The Rojava Women’s Revolution has continuous self-defense structures: YPJ, Women’s Asayish, HPC-Jin (women’s local self-defense forces), intelligence units, and many other ongoing forms of organization. Yet what I am referring to is a broader and deeper understanding of self-defense. I am trying to describe a profound form of self-defense that encompasses both individual and social spheres of life—one that remains vigilant and alert at every moment of life without interruption.

In the geography of the Middle East—where a revolution may have been achieved but remains at risk, constantly threatened by counter-revolutionary forces—we experienced gaps in organizing self-defense as a philosophy of life, a way of living, and a tempo of existence among women and society in the Rojava Women’s Revolution. This is not a phenomenon that can be explained solely in military terms. Because all dimensions of the Democratic Nation, as defined by Abdullah Öcalan, are at the same time dimensions of self-defense.

According to this definition, organizing education strongly is a field of self-defense. The same is already true for the economy in a vital sense. Öcalan repeatedly reminded that the Rojava Revolution is a social revolution, and that in order to defend and protect itself against attacks, it is necessary for it to develop its own economic system. Because, according to him, if this could not be achieved, it could even lead “to the destruction and liquidation of the social revolution.” For this reason he made the following warnings years ago:

“Wherever social revolutions take place, they must first develop their own economic systems… For the Rojava Revolution and for our people in Rojava to protect their revolution and their existence, they must develop a Revolutionary War Economy.”

If we address the economic dimension of the experience more concretely from the perspective of this warning, there are many aspects to be discussed. For example, many institutions were developed in the field of economy; each canton and each district has economic councils and economic committees. There are also cooperatives in different economic sectors, shared cultivation fields, and institutions. Tremendous effort and labor were invested in the creation of all these structures. They had reflections in the material and spiritual worlds of women and opened new horizons. This issue alone is a broad subject of analysis in itself.

However, despite all its positive aspects, the field of women’s economy also became an area with many shortcomings, misconceptions, and gaps in terms of becoming an economic system corresponding to the war economy emphasized by Öcalan. Although this field is one of the most ancient spheres of life organized by women and offered to society, the reflections of women’s distinctive thinking, feeling, and creativity remained insufficient. Now, in an important part of North and East Syria, many of the achievements in the economic sphere—where women’s labor had become concrete—have fallen into the hands of HTS–ISIS gangs. As war spoils.

Those that remain in the Rojava region now face the threats and dangers of the politics of the Syrian Transitional Government forces, whose acceptance of the women’s autonomous system remains more than uncertain and whose approach does not recognize women’s specific system. In this respect, a situation has emerged that women must defend and support at the international level.

This situation is similar in other areas of life as well. For example, the field of education. Across all of North and East Syria, nearly 90% of those working as teachers in official schools are women. Will these teachers be allowed to continue their professions? There are Jineolojî courses taught in high schools, and there is a University Faculty of Jineolojî. In universities and throughout the education system there is a co-chair system in administration. There are student councils in schools. There is the right to education in the mother tongue for all social components. All of these are gains achieved over years. Now they are under threat and danger. There is not yet clarity, but the atmosphere that has emerged so far is frightening and dominated by an approach that imposes uniformity.

A similar situation exists in the field of health. Across all of North and East Syria, there is a distinct health council that encompasses all women working in the health sector. In this council, women healers working in the field of natural-social medicine are also included. In all institutions within the health sector there is also the co-chair system. As in all other dimensions, there are distinct academies and training programs in the health field as well.

In the fields of justice and law, too, women’s councils, the co-chair system, academies, and women’s working areas are organized. As one of the most well-known symbolic institutions of the Rojava Women’s Revolution, there are Mala Jin (women’s houses) in almost every district and town. The field of diplomacy is organized as committees, councils, academies, and many sub-units. Within the dimension organized as the social sphere, there are children’s committees, women’s associations, civil society organizations for people with disabilities, and many other specific forms of organization.

Within the perspective of the Democratic Nation, ecology is defined by Öcalan as a “fundamental form of consciousness.” For this reason, organizing all dimensions within the women’s revolution has always sought to develop an ecological perspective as much as a Jineolojî-based one. On this basis, the women’s organization Kongra Star, which has attempted to organize the eight dimensions of democratic women’s confederalism in the area of the Rojava Revolution, has—alongside all the other dimensions of its work—also tried to develop distinct committees, councils, and civil society organizations in the field of ecology.

Across all these dimensions and within the field of ecology, thousands of seminars and training sessions have been given to women, children, youth, and men. Each dimension has also received professional trainings according to its own specific needs. Ignoring this tremendous labor—which could only truly be described over a very long time—would be unjust. Because the labor of thousands of women exists within these dimensions.

Yet precisely in order for this labor to become stronger, freer, and more organized, we also evaluate the aspects that remained incomplete. The most fundamental deficiency, as the recent developments have shown, is the inadequacy in approaching the organization of all these dimensions through the axis of self-defense and in developing them with a holistic approach.

In fact, while women’s approaches generally do not tend to treat dimensions and areas of life as disconnected from one another, I observed that in the last 5–6 years of the revolution, women also remained insufficient in this regard. I believe this is connected to women not having been able to radically break away from the arguments, ways of thinking, lifestyles, and habits of power and male domination.

To what extent was the reality that Öcalan calls “infinite divorce” achieved in the Rojava Women’s Revolution? This question can be asked for many areas of life. In the fundamental social spheres of life that I briefly tried to summarize above, was the mentality of the state and male domination truly overcome?

To what extent were the democratic principles of diversity, equality, and difference—values that multiply as women realize them within their own personalities and stances—made truly vital in the women’s revolution? These questions are crucial and will continuously be subjected to analysis by the pioneers and workers of the women’s revolution.

As a result, the inadequacies experienced in this regard led to the loss of some gains and placed others under threat and risk. At present there is still a tremendous women’s resistance continuing in Rojava. In order to defend their material and moral gains and develop them more strongly, they are of course analyzing this experience from many angles themselves. But perhaps now more than ever, standing beside them and sharing our solidarity has also become our responsibility.

The development of confederal networks across all dimensions of social life (health, economy, diplomacy, education, law, social sphere, economy, politics, free co-life) was one of the fundamental goals of the Rojava Women’s Revolution. Developing these networks both in Rojava–Syria, and across the Middle East and the world, was a fundamental perspective. Was this achieved?

Very important experiences took place both in the intellectual sphere (training cycles, brochures, seminars, conferences and congresses, presentations, joint discussion workshops, periodic meetings, etc.) and in the practical sphere across all dimensions. A very important and rich accumulation and women’s memory was formed in all the dimensions of the Democratic Nation (education, diplomacy, economy, social sphere, law–justice, health, political sphere, Free Co-life). This topic itself is a subject of analysis and discussion, and perhaps it would be better to address it in a separate article.

Nevertheless, in this text that attempts to analyze the Rojava Women’s Revolution, we can touch on a few fundamental aspects of it. I may express some of the incomplete aspects in a somewhat critical and self-critical way. Of course, when making these criticisms, the following must always be taken into account: from the beginning of the Rojava experience until today there has always been the relentless atmosphere of the Third World War, the continuous and multi-dimensional attacks of the counter-revolutionary front—which, when researched, reveals itself to be a very broad and powerful front—and the reactionary forces within (nationalism, collaboration with enemies of the Kurds, and the many mental and institutional fields of male-dominated mentality that have not yet been overcome).

Despite all these disadvantages, it should also never be forgotten that women have demonstrated continuous resistance, continuous labor, continuous education, and continuous efforts at self-defense. Yet even with all this in mind, making our criticisms and self-criticisms objectively can protect us from possible mistakes and weaknesses we may encounter today and in the future. If we read this as a strong step of self-defense, I believe it will be far more beneficial.

On this basis, what were the aspects in which women’s leadership needed to succeed more strongly in understanding, organizing, and making vital the eight dimensions of the democratic nation? First of all, these dimensions did not fully succeed in organizing themselves as a coherent whole within a confederal network. The dimensions—in other words, the fundamental spheres of life—could not fully construct a confederal network that was continuous, flexible, inclusive, and complementary. The approach shaped by positivism, dogmatism, or different intellectual forms, which treated these spheres as fragmented, fragmenting, and separate from one another, could not be fully overcome.

On the other hand, although the experiences of all these dimensions were written in the social mind and social memoryas rich as an immense treasure, the pioneers, cadres, and friends of the Rojava Women’s Revolution, as well as the thousands of local cadres who took part in the revolutionary field, remained weak in reading and benefiting from this treasure. In the Rojava Revolution, these eight dimensions were also attempted to be built in the general social sphere, and alongside the specific dimensions, thousands of women also took part in organizing the general ones. As women, we also fell short in leading this general construction in the right direction and in creating correct models and examples. At the same time, we could have conveyed more strongly to all segments of society the vital importance of organizing these dimensions. We could have carried out more scientific and objective readings of the sociology and psychology of women and societies from different peoples in Rojava and North-East Syria. We could have developed projects that more objectively took into account historical codes, cultural forms, and especially the influence of religion.

In this sense, I think one of the most fundamental lessons taught by the Rojava Women’s Revolution is precisely this: that every women’s freedom movement must sociologically, historically, and culturally understand—and grasp in depth—the phenomenon of religion and belief systems in the geography in which it lives.

Whether a woman adheres to a religious belief or not, if she cannot correctly interpret the religious and belief atmosphere of the geography in which she lives and of the revolutionary fields with which she interacts and is influenced, she cannot develop the right perspectives for a women’s revolution. The geography of Europe, which experienced extremely bloody and heavy religious wars two hundred years ago, and in the last century and today the geographies of the Middle East, the Balkans, and India–Pakistan, among others, have gone through very painful and tragic experiences in this respect—and they continue to do so. These experiences are never erased from the memory of peoples and belief communities; they do not remain only in the moment in which they occurred. Wars fought in the name of religion become encoded in collective memory, and their traces and effects remain alive today; they produce resentment and hatred or poison the shared life of society, the unity of peoples’ destinies, and hopes for democratic and free life. In this sense, women’s struggles must recognize and interpret the historicity of religious beliefs and the effects they have produced in the areas where they develop and exert influence.

For example, the Women’s Laws created in the Rojava Women’s Revolution and the experience of their implementation are also an experience worth analyzing from this religion-and-belief perspective. Even though they live in the same geography and believe in the same religion, the ancient cultural codes of societies have made the reading, internalization, and application of these laws different. The results and data that have emerged are very rich. The beliefs of peoples and their religious formations, as well as the ways in which the capitalist system, local reactionary forces, and nation-states, and the paramilitary forces influenced by them, provoke, manipulate, distort, and radicalize these formations for their own interests are vital subjects worthy of analysis. As women, we see every day in many parts of the world the monsters created by this ugly politics that recognizes no moral values, as well as the lives it destroys. For this reason, I believe that this issue should be addressed specifically and studied in the academic field.

While speaking about the organization of social life through its fundamental dimensions, it is also necessary to touch upon the idea of "democratic integration" and its effects on the women’s revolution—one of the phenomena that arouses the greatest curiosity. Undoubtedly, this is a subject so multifaceted and complex that it could be the topic of many different writings, and it must be handled skillfully and consciously. It concerns all our lives closely. Especially in today’s world, where imperialist global powers are determining and implementing new plans and projects for the whole world—and particularly for nation-states—correctly understanding and applying this issue is vital.

How should we read and interpret democratic integration in relation to the Rojava context in general and the Rojava Women’s Revolution in particular? The answer to this question will remain a fundamental agenda in the coming period as well. For now, it is sufficient to mention a few points within the scope addressed in this article. If the forces of the Rojava Women’s Revolution, which strongly define and organize the fundamental dimensions of life mentioned above, do so successfully, they will certainly achieve integration on a democratic and principled basis. As a fundamental force and component of the Syrian state, Kurds, like in all other states, will focus on the struggle to exercise their democratic rights. Kurdish women, as always, must remain organized in every sphere of life with a solid and profound understanding of democracy, as the central axis of this struggle. History shows us dozens of examples of those who fought for their rights and won them but later lost them because they did not maintain their organization. From the perspective of the Rojava Women’s Revolution, this risk also exists to a great extent.

Neither dissolving in the name of integration, nor remaining in a constant state of rebellion and exhausting one’s strength in the name of opposition. The fundamental perspective of the women’s revolution is to become conscious, organized, and to continue existence in freedom in every sphere of life.

What will happen next?

Of course there are heavy risks, constant threats, a difficult sociological ground, and many other negative factors. Yes, a dark time, a fascist spirit, and dirty hands are being imposed upon us—upon people everywhere in the world, upon women and all oppressed groups, and especially upon our children. Societies are being pushed back into the iron cage of the nation-state. Many discouraging and hope-breaking developments surround us. In such a time, one might ask: Is democratic integration with the state possible? Many people indeed ask this question.

Yes, those who build within themselves—at the level of consciousness and organization—democracy, communality, communal life, and the values of socialism and freedom, in contrast to the dark, anti-democratic, and anti-human aspects of the state, will not dissolve through integration. They will organize their existence firmly, as themselves, while maintaining constant awareness of the danger of massacre. Understanding this phenomenon is also possible by seeing and feeling the monsters of capitalist life, sectarian fanaticism, and the darkness of DAESH that are created around us. Against forces that are constantly antagonized, othered, and “terrorized,” the greatest weapon has always been arguments such as “they want to destroy the state” or “they are a danger to the unity of the state.” Taking these arguments away from those who use them and turning them into a ground for organizing one’s own free and democratic life is an important path forward—of course with a strong consciousness of freedom, existential awareness, and a constant constructive power of building. This, in turn, depends on our ability to build all the dimensions mentioned above strongly under women’s leadership. The key point here is the legal and juridical recognition of our rights. Taking away from those who wish to imprison the legitimacy and meaning of our existence outside the law—who constantly seek to judge us as potential criminals—will be an important strategic step and will also open new positions for the women’s revolution. Here again, the concepts and arguments of multiplying ourselves, multiplying our claim, solutions, consciousness, and organization, and thereby expanding the space of politics gain crucial importance.

One of the most debated issues regarding the Rojava Revolution is the question of relations with the state and with international powers on the ground—especially the United States, Russia, Israel, and France. Öcalan, the greatest contributor to the Rojava Revolution, has from the beginning offered warnings and perspectives on these matters:

“We know how the United States has struggled against our leadership line and the Freedom Movement, and what it has done until now. Therefore they must be very careful about the relations they will enter into with the United States in Syria from now on. They must act consciously and vigilantly. America’s aim will be to liquidate our leadership line and the Freedom Movement in Rojava… However, one should not refrain from establishing relations with the United States just because it will approach with such an aim and will act on that basis. Relations can be established with America, and not only with America but with any power that wishes. It is known what kind of reality Kurdistan and the Middle East are passing through. It is known what kind of world reality we are living in. Relations can be established with every power on a principled basis. In the end these are tactical relations. Therefore one should not hesitate to enter into political, military, and diplomatic relations.”

These assessments constitute the main orientation for the Rojava Revolution and for the women’s revolution that developed and took the lead within it. They summarize many aspects of what ought to be. But did relations develop in this direction? This is a controversial issue. Especially in relation to the Syrian and Rojava agenda that began with the 6 January Aleppo attacks and continues to be intensely debated, it has become one of the central arguments of discussion.

From the perspective of the revolutionary forces of Rojava, definitions such as “relying on the US and Western powers, on Israel,” “trusting them too much,” “allowing oneself to be used as an instrument,” “being betrayed,” “being sold” were voiced. From the perspective of US forces, expressions such as “selling out,” “betraying,” “abandoning,” “leaving them behind,” “using them” and many other characterizations were expressed. Whether these definitions and labels are appropriate to the language of politics and diplomacy is another matter. However, it is a reality that for the revolutionary forces of Rojava the dimension of democratic relations, alliances, or diplomacy, which is one of the fundamental dimensions of the democratic nation, remained very insufficiently organized when it comes to relating to peoples, alternative democratic forces, and their own internal strength. Would organizing this dimension much more strongly have completely changed the outcome? We cannot know entirely, but the probability that the material and moral losses could have been much smaller is very high. In this sense, the experience of the Rojava Revolution has shown that in relations with global and regional hegemonic powers, being flexible and creative while preserving principles is extremely valuable.

For the forces of the Rojava Women’s Revolution, this critical analysis is also binding. Women could have discovered more unique and new paths in reflecting the collective women’s intellect into the field of diplomacy in an organized and creative way. In relation to the shortcomings experienced in this field, they could have acted with more organized and courageous initiative in line with the criticisms they had already expressed and the foresight they possessed. Of course it is also important who evaluates relations with global and regional hegemonic powers, for what purpose, and from which perspective. The revolutionary forces of Rojava had to navigate a dialectic that was both contradictory and relational with powers such as Israel and the United States. This is not an equation or formula that is easy to manage—especially not in the Middle East, where developments change from day to day. Although the women’s movement has always maintained sensitivity and critical awareness on this issue, its ability to translate this into practical politics remained limited. This experience—with both its positive and negative aspects—again forces us to concentrate on the art of politics and to draw conclusions that will affect our lives. For example, in Rojava women established important institutions in the dimension of diplomacy as well. Why, despite so many institutions and forms of organization, did these not translate into the democratic relations and alliances that were desired?

This question leads us to reflect on the relationship between the fluid energy of freedom and the static, materializing energy of institutionalization in the processes through which women attempt to solve their freedom problems from the perspective of a women’s revolution or women’s freedom struggle. Thus, alongside maintaining the fluidity of women’s freedom energy, we also have the task of examining where and how this energy should take form as a fundamental sociological phenomenon. We can do this in the concrete case of the Rojava Women’s Revolution. For example: What forms did our freedom energy take in the Rojava women’s revolution? Into which forms did we place our multidimensional, rich, creative, colorful women’s energy? It is important to analyze phenomena such as organization, institutionalization, contracts, Women’s Laws, and similar structures with both their positive and negative aspects. We can do this by comparing institutionalized work with activities that continue to flow and function without having a full institutional structure, and by analyzing how society maintains its natural life spheres without visible institutions. Many women sociologists, historians, and political scientists could visit Rojava to examine these and many other issues from feminist and Jineolojî perspectives. I am certain that many women who make such visits will reach far richer conclusions than the observations and determinations I have noticed and attempted to share in this text. The working and resistant women of the Rojava Revolution, who are spread across many countries of the world, will also claim this experience through strong analyses and carry it forward. My belief and confidence in this is strong, because even in the most difficult times the women of the world and the women in the Rojava revolutionary field did not give up resisting, laughing, hoping, loving, and producing. They will not give up again, and just as bread and water are shared, they will share their wisdom, experience, awareness, and scientific enlightenment with one another and will become the owners of courageous steps on the path of the women’s revolution.

It is also important to read the Rojava Women’s Revolution from an internationalist perspective. In fact, in my view, the Rojava Experience has changed the perception and definition of internationalism—and it continues to do so. What has happened over the past two months across the world, based on the solidarity of peoples with the Rojava revolution, demonstrates this once again. In fact, all the women and men who participated in the Rojava revolution are the most solid members of a new “Communal International.” This revolution has fundamentally transformed the understanding of internationalism present in the revolutions of the twentieth century. Internationalism is no longer only about those who go from outside to join a revolution in another country, or the solidarity between revolutionaries in different countries of the world. The struggle that everyone develops in their own country against the capitalist system and against the violence of their own nation-state also carries an internationalist value and meaning. The fundamental phenomenon that shaped and created Rojava in this sense was that women, in the lead, defeated the internationally organized brutality of the darkest forces in the world such as DAESH. This defeat—or the victory of Rojava—carries an internationalist meaning. Stopping or defeating DAESH, proving that it could be defeated, was a contribution to the self-defense of the entire world—a costly, magnificent, and historic act of self-defense. That is why the peoples of the world embraced it; that is why everyone who participated in the Rojava revolution are strong and steadfast internationalists.

On this basis, although the Women Defend Rojava Networks may appear as solidarity networks that developed around the Rojava Revolution, they have in fact created—and continue to create—an immense experience for women across the entire world. This too can be considered an example of multiplying the revolution within oneself, or of the revolution’s multiplying power. It is very important that the communication networks among the pioneers of the Rojava Women’s Revolution remain daily, continuous, and flexible according to need. During this process—and in fact also during earlier periods of war—we experienced a phenomenon in which the Women Defend Rojava networks—each of them essentially communes—became passive when the level of war in Rojava decreased, but visible when war reached the doorstep or intensified. They must move beyond such a stance. Especially at the stage we have reached today, this is extremely necessary in order to protect the gains of women in the Rojava revolutionary field. For example, there are areas in which Jineolojî has gained ground in the Rojava revolutionary field: the Jineolojî Faculty and master’s programs at the university, Jineolojî centers, Jineolojî academies, and Jineolojî classes for students in high schools. There is also, although still insufficient, a tremendous experience and accumulation in terms of democratic women’s confederalism. The Women’s Councils, cooperatives, and women’s institutions and organizations in all spheres of social life must be defended with the collective women’s mind and emotion. The Women Defend Rojava networks can play an immense role both in introducing these achievements to the world and in defending them at a time when they are under threat.

Finally, I would like to address the war crimes that occurred during the process of attacks on the Rojava Revolution and the women’s revolution, which began on 6 January and continue in certain areas—at the time of writing this text, Kobanê is still under siege. In this regard, the War Crimes in North-East Syria reports (two reports, one focusing on women and one on children) prepared by the Jineolojî Rojava Academy, shared with the public in eight languages and creating a wide impact, provide very important data. Examining these reports is extremely crucial—not only for understanding the situation in one country, but also for recognizing once again the relentless war against women worldwide. As I conclude this text, I propose organizing a global action by women of the world concerning these war crimes. I believe that women working especially in the legal field, as well as politicians, academics, women’s freedom activists, workers, and women living everywhere in the world, should unite and create a powerful collective response, wherever such crimes occur.

I would like to remind once again that the Rojava Revolution and the Women’s Revolution developed in Syria, where all the brutalities of the Third World War have been displayed. These brutalities deepened in the environment of relations and contradictions shaped by the policies of the Turkish state and other regional states and global powers toward Rojava. In this atmosphere, many hopes, thoughts, and projects that women developed concerning all spheres of life remained unfinished, were implemented at a heavy pace, or were lost in the uncertainties created by war. From the heavy economic embargo (no customs gate was opened to Rojava), to the daily military attacks, from the cutting of water resources flowing to Rojava, to the addition of harmful substances and drugs to medicines and food shipments, from the deliberate spread of drug and prostitution trade, to the creation of agent networks, from cutting the connections and interactions of the academic field with other spheres, to preventing medicine and necessary technical equipment from reaching the health sector, and from the arrival of organizations under the name of civil society from many different countries that damage the social fabric—the Rojava Women’s Revolution is the revolution of women who wage a struggle for life under relentless attack. In this respect, it shares similarities with the revenge-driven and surrender policies directed at the Cuban Revolution, and with the destructive war waged by the imperialist front against the Russian Revolution. It has many aspects in common with revolutionary experiences across the world. Women living in those countries may also feel this more deeply, develop empathy, and today be more effective in helping to heal the wounds of Rojava.

In this sense, my call is to all women with beautiful hearts and resilient spirits: as much as we look critically, let us also be restorative and constructive; as much as we try to understand, let us also reach out—even if only with a greeting—to the women of Rojava and multiply love, friendship, and freedom. Let us embrace the Rojava Women’s Revolution with our pains, our hopes, and our veins filled with determination, courage, and resolve.

I conclude by repeating the words written on a wall by brave Iranian women, and by respectfully saluting all the people—women, men, youth, and children—who are currently fighting a struggle for life, existence, dignity, and freedomagainst great brutality in Iran and Eastern Kurdistan:

WE HAVE NO HOME BUT THE REVOLUTION!

25.02.2025

Pelşîn Tolhildan, Executive Council member of the KJK (Kurdistan Women's Communities)

[1]The İmralı Assessments (2014–2015)