Legitimacy of state is largely grounded on sovereignty it incurs over its citizens and hence the authority it exercises. In certain cases of intrastate violence, armed guerilla forces may supersede the power of the state in some regions of the state territory, and claim authority. Loss of recognition as an authority in the eyes of the public bear strong implications for state legitimacy, and this is an oft-encountered phenomena in the ‘liberated zones’. Turkey, for one, has undergone a three-decade long armed conflict between the state forces and the PKK, which seems to be at halt since the ceasefire in April 2013. Autonomy being the ultimate desire of the Kurdish movement has been at the heart of negotiations and it, indeed, seems to be de facto in place in many Kurdish cities in Turkey, yet still under authority of Turkish state. What are the implications of this practice of autonomy on recognition of Turkish state? How do identities of citizens and legitimacy interact? This paper intends to examine the legitimacy of the state as well as changing dynamics of the state-society relationship in the Kurdish region throughout the course of the armed struggle with a historical perspective. Broadly speaking, it is, an investigation on the consequences of state’s denial to recognize the ethnic diversities on state’s legitimacy and democracy. The interplay between the macro and micro factors as in the form of collective and individual memory as well as the repercussions of institutional acts on lives of people is at the heart of this paper’s analysis. Subordination of Kurdish citizens and culture of fear induced by the strong hand of Turkish state against any threat to the unity of the nation are the two both overlapping and yet distinct factors shaping attitudes and behavior of Kurdish people in Turkey. There is considerable variation among cities and individuals. The policies of the state—i.e. the assimilation strategies—, the individual memory and the collective memory people chose to subscribe to, seem to be some powerful determinants of state perception and their identity formation. Empirical ground of this study comes from dissertation fieldwork conducted in Turkey. The original data is composed of 46 expert interviews, 82 in-depth interviews and 14 focus groups with ordinary people across 8 different cities with varying proximity to the hot zone of the conflict.