 Two sides of the same coin
Ethnic cleansing and dictatorship vs. pluralism and democracy:
A Critique of ethnic policies of Pahlavi and Islamic fundamentalist
regimes
By Masoud Kazemzadeh
June 15, 2004
iranian.com
In the process of modernization, many polities
encounter numerous issues and problems. One is the actual and cultural
articulation of nationhood in the process of the creation of a "nation-state." One
policy is what was embraced by Adolf Hitler in Germany, Reza Mirpang
Pahlavi in Iran, and Slobodan Milosevic in former Yugoslavia. This
requires the identification of only one group as the sole owner
of a country and the elimination, marginalization, or subjugation
(physical, cultural, etc) of all other groups. Hitler designated
the Aryans, Reza Mirpang and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi the Persians,
and Milosovic the Serbs as the sole owner of his "nation-state." [1]
Each then instituted harsh discrimination against
the others. This method requires a brutal dictatorship not only
to eliminate and
oppress the other groups but also all those in the designated dominant
group who are liberal, social democrat, and humanitarian who oppose
genocide, ethnic cleansing and discrimination.
But what would Iranian
democrats do to develop a modern polity? Is ethnic cleansing
or genocide the only way to create a modern nation-state or is
there
a pluralistic and democratic way? In this essay, I intend to
discuss some of the problems with the dictatorial ethnic policies
in Iran
since 1920s and suggest that we need a different approach if
we are to have pluralism and democracy in the post-fundamentalist
Iran. Iranians and Iran have remained a nation and a country
in much of the last 2,500 years. The Euro-centric belief argues
that:
(1) "nation" is
a European construct; (2) the origins of the nation- state began
in Europe after the peace of Westphalia in 1648; and (3) the other
constructions of nationhood in the Thirds World are artificial
imitations of the Europeans who had colonized them and taught them
about the notion of nation.
This Euro-centric perspective has made
many to argue that Iranian nationalism is an artificial construction
of recent times. A typical rendition of this argument is Joya
Blondel Saad, The Image of Arabs in Modern Persian Literature (Lanham,
MD; University Press of America, 1996). Saad writes that Iranian
nationalism is the invention of the 18th and 19th century Europeans,
that Iranians borrowed it from the Europeans, and that Iranian
nationalists are anti-Arab racists. Anyone who is familiar with
the pre-Islamic history of Iran, the resistance to the Arab-Islamic
conquest of Iran, and the existence
of cultural articulation of Iranian nationhood by many including
Ferdowsi, the 10th century poet, knows that Saad's view is clearly
mistaken. Franklin Lewis, of Emory University, in his excellent
review of Saad's book, writes:
"This argument I find problematic for a number
of reasons. First, the modern definition of Iran in terms of a
linguistic, ethnic, racial and territorial entity
distinct from its foreign, and specifically Arab, neighbors appears in fully
articulated form in the Shu'ubiyya movement of the 10th and 11th centuries,
and indeed much earlier. The Avesta speaks of the Airyanem Vaeja,
the homeland of
the Aryan Iranians, and in the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi, the sharp distinction
between Iran and non-Iran (an-iran)-- rivals and invaders variously
associated with mythic,
Greek, Turkic, and then eventually Arab and Muslim peoples— gives the
story its primary contours.
Ferdowsi's sense of tragedy over the conquest of
Sasanid
Iran stems not so much from the religion of the conquerors (Ferdowsi was,
after all, Muslim), but because of the nomadic and uncivilized
nature of the victorious
Arab tribesmen who brought the saga of the Iranian nation to an end. Ferdowsi
curses fate for allowing a superior and glorious civilization, which had
withstood the attacks of its enemies since mythopoetic time immemorial,
to succumb to
barbarian invaders, whom he characterized as lizard- eaters and camel milk-drinkers
with
overwhelming ambitions on the realm of the Persians ('ajam, itself an Arabic
word for the linguistic Other, which however came to inform Iranian self-
definition as referring specifically to Persians and Sasanain Iran). ....But the Arab for
these poets [Naderpour, Akhavan-e Sales] is not a contemporary living being,
he is merely a symbol in the nationalism of nostalgia, formulated
already a thousand years earlier in the Shahnameh." [2]
Therefore, the sense of Iranian-ness is very old
and is NOT an artificial imitation of Western nationalism in the
post-Westphalian world. The sentiment
and ethos
of Iranian-ness goes back at least 2,500 years as reflected in the writings
of Cyrus the Great and Dariush. It is also reflected in the resistance
Iranians carried against foreign conquest of their motherland in
the past 2,500 years.
Despite invasion and colonial subjugation by Alexander the Macedonian,
Omar-Arab- Islamic invaders, the Mongols, the Russians and the
British in the 19th and
20th
centuries, there have been those who resisted and fought for Iran's independence
like Babak Khorramdin, Maziar, Yaghob ol Leis Safar, Sattar Khan, Baqer
Khan, Dr. Mossadegh, and Dr. Fatemi.
And our history has also witnessed those who collaborated
with foreign invaders, opened the gates, guided them through mountain
passages, and
planes of our
country. In the 20th century, one could name the likes of Vosugh ol-Dowleh,
Seyyed Zia
Tabatabaee, Reza Mirpang Pahlavi, and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who collaborated
with foreign colonizers and helped defeat patriotic Iranians and helped
subjugate Iran to foreign colonial control. [3]
What is a "Nation"? What is a "State"? What is a "Nation-State"?
Political Scientist Ellen Grigsby defines "nation" as: "A nation
is a group of people with a sense of unity based on the importance the group
attributes to a shared trait, attribute, or custom. A common language, religion,
ethnicity, race, and/or culture are often the foundation of national identity.
Indeed, the very origins of the word nation attest to such foundations, because
nation is based on the older Latin word natus (birth), and nations generally
consist of people whose sense of unity is based on something shared by virtue
of the group into which they are born.[4]
Grigsby defines "state" in the following words: "A state is an
organization that has a number of political functions and tasks, including providing
security, extracting revenues, and forming rules for resolving disputes and allocating
resources within the boundaries of the territory in which it exercises jurisdiction.
That is, states consist of government offices, which have the tasks of providing
the ultimate, or primary, security, extraction processes, and rule making within
a territory." [5]
The "nation-state" is generally defined as: "A state structure
in which a nation resides and exists (ideally) to protect and promote the interests
of that nation."[6]
In reality there are very few states that are composed
of one nation or ethnic group. Human beings have always moved around
the globe.
Therefore, the term "nation-state" --
if by nation one refers to one ethnic group or one race — is a rare phenomenon.
In reality all modern states are multi-national. Moreover, we observe supra-national
entities such as the EU which have emerged that pull together previously organized
countries into a unit composed of many "nations."
When we look at the US, or Canada or Switzerland,
we observe not one nation, [nation defined as one ethnic group
or race or linguistic
group],
but rather
a melting pot of many nations or races or ethnic groups or linguistic
groups.
In Farsi, the word "mellat" [nation] is used in contradiction to "dowlat" [state,
government]. There is a huge element of subjectiveness to the definition of "nation" [mellat].
The shared history may be real or mythical. What is very interesting is that
history, political culture, and political realities have had a huge impact how
words are used in Iran and the U.S. For example, in Iran the schools that are
governmental are called "dowlati" whereas private schools are called "melli."
Here
the word "melli" refers to what belongs not to the state but rather
to the people. In the U.S., the schools that are private, are called "private
school" referring to an exclusive group of people that might exclude and
discriminate (e.g., a private Baptist school or a private Jewish school or a
private Catholic school or a private Muslim school). But the schools owned by
the government are called "public schools" referring to the school
belonging to the public and not a private interest. In Iran, unlike the U.S., we have had terribly oppressive
regimes (Qajar, Pahlavi, Islamic fundamentalist) where each was
an exclusive
group
composed of a terribly
brutal clique that oppressed and discriminated against the people
of Iran (the public). Therefore, our words and terms have come
to reflect
this
huge gulf
which exists between the government (under Qajar, Pahlavi, Islamic
fundamentalists) on the one hand and the people of Iran on the
other.
The term "melli," related to the word "mellat" in our political
culture has come to refer to the politics of those who defend the interests of
the nation or public against the oppressive state. And the term "melliun" to
the group of individuals who are melli. The terms "melli" and "melliun" have
developed from the time of the Constitutional Revolution (1906)
to refer to those who sided with the national interests of Iran
which was contra-posed to the king
(regarded to be both a puppet of foreign colonial interests and
oppressing the nation). Since 1949 the term melliun refers to those
in or close to the Iran
National Front [Jebhe Melli Iran]. The term melliuncan be translated
to nationalists, populists, patriots, or democrats.
To become modern was it necessary for Hitler to
discriminate and eliminate Jews or gypsies? Was it necessary for
Milosevic to discriminate
and
eliminate Slovens,
Croats, Bosnians, Kosovor Albanians? Was it necessary for Reza
Mirpang Pahlavi to designate Persian chauvinism as the official
state ideology,
to replace
Iranian nationalism [melli-garaee Irani] with Persian chauvinism,
and then to brutally
oppress our Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Qashqais, Bakhtiaris....
Was Iran a country with territorial integrity under
Safavids? Yes. Were Safavids Persian? No. Safavids were Azerbaijanis.
They did
choose Shia
Islam and with
the force of the sword killed and forced hitherto Sunni Iranians
to convert to Shia Islam. Was it necessary to kill and/or convert
Iranians
to Shia
in order
to create a "nation-state," or was there a pluralistic and non- violent
way?
The fact of the matter is that our Azerbaijanis defended
Iran and Iran's territorial integrity from Russians and Ottomans
under the
Safavids.
Iranians from other
ethnic groups lived peacefully in one country. It was Afghans,
an Iranian related ethnic group that overthrew the Safavid dynasty.
Under the
Qajars, Iranians,
whether Persian, Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Bakhtiari, Qashqai, lived
in
one country. And it was the Qajars who re-created the modern
borders of Iran
by fighting
against Ottomans and Russians (initially successfully and the
later Qajars very badly).
In fact, many of the tribal groups defended Iran's
national interests and territorial integrity. For example, the
Tangestani tribes
fought bravely
against British
colonizers. Same with the Qashqais and Bakhtiaris.
Ethnic sub-nationalism in Iran is of recent origins
and goes back to the resistance to the fascistic polices of the
Pahlavis
and
the Islamic
fundamentalists
in
the past 80 years. The Pahlavi polices of ethnic cleansing
and cultural oppression and actual physical elimination and
genocide
have left
many non-Persian Iranians
feeling like second-class citizens in our common land of
Iran. Kurds and Persians have lived together for over 2,700 years,
but the racist
policies
of the Pahlavis
have created so much resentment that at times this has put
the territorial integrity
of Iran in jeopardy.
Khomeini followed similar policies that were pursued
by the Pahlavis, but the lexicon of Persian- ness was replaced
by
the lexicon
of ommat [Shia]
Islam.
Horrendous discrimination and ethnic cleansing against
Azeris, Kurds, Jewish, Bahai, Sunnis,
Zoroastrians, Qashqais, and others have occurred in the
past 25 years. What have been the policies of Islamic fundamentalists
and
the ideological
and
historical contexts of their policies?
Islamic identity vs. Iranian identity
Although the Prophet Mohammad and his successors Abu Bakr
and Omar used the sword to consolidate their power, nevertheless
for most
of the Arabs
of the
Arabian
peninsula, Islam was (and is) a genuine home-grown religion
and worldview. On the contrary, Islam was violently imposed
on the
reluctant and
conquered Iranians.
In the bloody wars of 637-643 AD (Islamic years 15-23),
the Arab-Islamic invaders defeated Iranians, killed hundreds
of
thousands of Iranians,
took as war booty
thousands upon thousands of Iranian women and young girls
and distributed them among their soldiers and sold them
in
the
slave and concubine
bazaars of Mecca
and Medina, burned libraries in Iran, and made Iranians
second-class subjects in their own homeland forced to
pay heavy taxes
(called jeziah). The fact
that Iranians mounted a protracted war is quite significant
considering that the
Arab invasion occurred in the wake of a particularly
painful period of Iranian history.
Iranians were forced to accept
Islam in order to escape persecution. Even as Muslims the Iranians
were treated
as second-class
Muslims by their less
literate
Arab conquerors. The overwhelming majority of Iranians
adopted Sunni Islam and were Sunnis until the Safavid
dynasty established
itself
in northwestern
Iran
(today's Azerbaijan province) and literally through
the sword converted hitherto Sunni Iranians to the Shia denomination
of Islam beginning
in 1501. The only
Iranians who are Sunni today are those who lived on
the
periphery
of the Iranian heartland, too far away to have been
subdued by the Safavid
kings
(i.e., Baluchis,
Turkoman, and half the Kurdish population living either
in the mountainous region or located in places that
came under
the rule
of the Ottoman
Empire at one time
or another).
For the people of the Arabian Peninsula Islam is
a genuine reflection of their values and mores. In Iran,
Islam
is the ideology of
the invading foreign colonizers.
Both Iranian nationalism and culture are in constant
tension with Islam (in both Shia and Sunni versions).
The Arab-Islamic
conquest
of Iran
was
in effect
the
cultural genocide of Iranians: Iranians lost their
independence, sovereignty, culture, alphabet, religion,
and mores.
Many Iranians are not aware of the direct role of
Imam Ali [First Shia Imam] in encouraging and advising
Omar
to invade
and conquer
Iran.
Omar the 2nd
of the Rightly Guided Caliphs [Kholafayeh Rashedin]
asked Imam Ali what should he [Omar] do about Iran.
Omar had
two primary
concerns: (1) Should
he [Omar]
invade
Iran?; and (2) Should he [Omar] lead the invasion
force or should he stay back
at home in Mecca? In Sermon 145 in Nahjol Balagheh,
Imam Ali provides Omar the following advice.
1. Imam Ali tells Omar to invade Iran. That he
should not worry about the larger size of the
Iranian Army.
That Allah
wants
Arabs to defeat
Iran.
That in their
previous wars, the Muslims did not have the larger
army.
2. Imam Ali tells Omar
to stay back in Mecca. One reason is that the leader is very important. That
if he [Omar] personally led the invading troops, then the
Persians will aim at him and kill him and hence will be able to disperse the
Arab-Muslim invading army.
The following is from Nahjol Balagheh, Sermon 145.
The Shia believe that the
words in Nahjol Balagheh are direct words of Imam Ali.
"Spoken when Umar ibn al-Khatab consulted
Amir al-Mu'minin about taking part in the battle of Persia. [Imam
Ali
says to Omar]:
In this matter, victory or defeat is not dependent
on the smallness or greatness of forces. It is Allah's religion
which He has raised
above all faiths, and His
army which He has mobilized and extended, till it has reached the point where
it stands now, and has arrived its present positions. We hold a promise from
Allah, and He will fulfill His promise and support His army.
The position of the head of government is that of
the thread for beads, as it connects them and keeps them together.
If the thread is broken, they will disperse
and be lost, and will never come together again. The Arabs today, even though
small in number are big because of Islam and strong because of unity. You should
remain like the axis for them, and rotate the mill (of government) with (the
help of) the Arabs, and be their root. Avoid battle, because if you leave this
place the Arabs will attack you from all sides and directions till the unguarded
places left behind by you will become more important than those before you.
If the Persians see you tomorrow they will say, "He is the root (chief)
of Arabia. If we do away with him we will be in peace." In this way this
will heighten their eagerness against you and their keenness to aim at you. You
say that they have set out to fight against the Muslims. Well, Allah detests
their setting out more than you do, and He is more capable of preventing what
He detests. As regards your idea about their (large) number, in the past we did
not fight on the strength of large numbers but we fought on the basis of Allah's
support and assistance." [7]
Iranians can and do rely
upon many sources of cultural identity which are not Islamic. For
example, Ferdowsi's Shahnameh,
which is widely regarded to be equal
to, if not superior to, Homer's Iliad, is memorized and recited by literate
and illiterate Iranians alike. The works of Omar Khayyam, Hafez,
and Saadi are cultural
icons for the Iranians. Iran has a long history of scientific achievement.
For example, Razi (865-925 A.D.) known in the West
as Rhazes, and Ibn Sina (980-1037
A.D.), known in the west as Avecina, made major scientific contributions to
world civilization. Razi compiled the first medical encyclopedia
in history (more than
twenty volumes). Ibn Sina recognized the contagious nature of some diseases.
Ibn Sina's Canon of Medicine (al-Kanun) "was the chief medical book of
the Middle East and Western Europe from the twelfth to the seventeenth century." [8]
Ferdowsi, Khayyam, Hafez, Saadi, and Razi were declared a mortad (one who commits
blasphemy and, therefore, should be killed) by their contemporary Islamic clerics. After coming to power, the fundamentalists started
a massive attack on "Iranian
identity" and attempted to replace it with an "Islamic identity" for
the people in Iran. For the fundamentalists, "ommat Islami" [Islamic
community] is the only true source of identity and nationalist allegiance is
false and anti-Islamic. In a recent interview on the reason why the fundamentalist
leaders attacked Iranian identity, one of the experts from the fundamentalist
regime said: "...some of the fundamentalist leaders believed that by accepting
the genuineness of Iranian identity and giving legitimacy to Iranian civilization,
it was possible to undermine and hurt the legitimacy and credibility of the Islamic
identity." [9]
Since the 1979 revolution, fundamentalist leaders
have de-emphasized, banned, or maligned these icons of Iranian
civilization in the state media and school
textbooks. [10] Ayatollah Sadeq Khalkhali, the infamous "hanging judge" who
was one of the closest associates of Khomeini, organized a group to bulldoze
Ferdowsi's tomb in Tus near Mashhad. Only the intervention by then-Prime Minister
Mehdi Bazargan and his entire cabinet (which was composed of liberal Islamists
and secular liberal democrats) prevented Khalkhali from carrying out this plan.
The fundamentalist assault on "Iranian identity" and their attempt
to replace it with "Islamic identity" backfired within one generation.
This has given rise to a "crisis of identity" among young Iranians
who have in large numbers abandoned Islamic identity and have embraced Iranian
identity more than any time in Iran's recent history. Every year, the fundamentalist
regime has to send its coercive apparatuses to suppress the youth celebrating
pre-Islamic Iranian celebrations such as Chahar-Shanbeh Souri. The Supreme Leader
has repeatedly condemned and ridiculed these pre-Islamic celebrations as pagan
fire-worshiping rituals. Two sides of the same coin
On the other side of those who advocate and implement discrimination
and genocide are those who advocate separatism. In reaction to
the ethnic cleansing and discrimination
of Reza Mirpang, Mohamad Reza Pahlavi, and Khomeini, there have emerged those
in the oppressed communal groups arguing that survival requires THEIR "nation-state." Thus
the other side of the Pahlavist-Khomeinist mode of oppression has been the demands
and feelings for secession and separatism. Foreign powers have abused the sense
of injustice and oppression among these discriminated communal groups to undermine
the central government and put in jeopardy our territorial integrity. Ethnic
cleansing and ethnic separatism are two sides of the same coin
The fact is that in our history, we have had 2,700
years of wonderful harmony between Kurds [the ancient Medes] and
Persians until the rule of Reza Shah who
terribly oppressed our Kurdish compatriots, and then Stalin was able to take
advantage of their grievances in 1946. Our Azerbaijani compatriots recreated
the modern Iran under the Safavids in 1501.
The Qajars, a related Turkic group
also pushed the Russians out and re-established the current borders. Our
Tangestani tribes stood up to the British foreign colonizers and
did as much as they could
to help the weak, inept, and corrupt central government under Qajars. The
Bakhtiari tribes and Armenians defended the Constitutionalists
from the combined forces
of Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar and Russians in 1911. Same with the Qashqai tribes
who repeatedly came to the aid of the central governments and fought against
foreign powers. The British colonizers did manipulate some tribes
(including one sub-clan from the Bakhtiari tribe and many Arab
tribes) and used them for their own interests.
Both Reza Mirpang and Sheikh Khazal served as servants of the UK. There have
been many cases where various British government entities supported opposite
sides in a war.
For example, the Foreign Office, the British High Commissioner
in Cairo and the India Office, took opposite sides in the civil war in the
Arabian peninsula; where both the Hashemites and Saudis received
money, arms, and support
from different British agencies! The same was true in Iran. Both Reza Shah
and Khazal were traitors to Iran's national interests. Khazal
wanted to separate
our Khuzestan from the rest of the Iran. In this case Iranian patriots support
Reza Mirpang and condemn Khazal. Reza Mirpang's model almost resulted in Stalin being
able to take our Azerbaijan and Kurdestan away from us. Thanks
to President Harry Truman, Ahmad Qavam, and
the overwhelming majority of our wonderful Iranian-nationalist Azerbaijanis,
we were able to defeat Stalin's plan.
In the case of Azerbaijan, melliun (Iranian patriots)
condemn Pishevari for his collaboration with Stalin in general
and his collaborating with Stalin in separating
our Azerbaijan from Iran in particular. Qavam (although in 1952 committed treason
because of working with the British against our nationalist movement) but in
1946 did the right thing. While melliun condemn Qavam in 1952, they support
his actions in 1946 in defending the territorial integrity of Iran.
What is most
interesting is that while all these serious crisis were brewing, Mohammad
Reza Shah was silent and absent. But as soon as the whole episode
was resolved and
AFTER the Kurdish forces gave up and surrendered, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi went
to Kurdestan and publically hanged the leaders who had already surrendered
without a fight. The Shah's brutal savage killings left a legacy
of bitterness. The wise
policy would have been to forgive the Kurdish leaders and bring them in into
a united Iran and share power with them. Tribalism is a backward form of organization like
monarchy, feudalism, and theocracy. We need to have modern forms
of organizations like political parties based on
policies and platforms. We need to modernize the old and ancient forms of administration
and bureaucracies. The question is how to proceed.
One method is the fascistic method of ethnic cleansing
and discrimination employed by Hitler, Reza Mirpang, and Milosevic.
Another form is the pluralistic and democratic
method used in all the multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, multi-national, multi-cultural
societies. This task is not easy. But the fascistic model (Hitler, Pahlavis-Khomeinists,
Milosevic) has generated continued conflict and, in the case of Yugoslavia,
disintegration of that country. Before the racist policies of Reza
Mirpang, most of our various
groups lived together. It was Reza Mirpang's racist policies that made many
of the minorities opt for separatism. We should condemn both the
racism of Pahlavis
and the separatism of the separatists.
The racist policies of Reza Shah, Mohammad
Reza Shah, and Khomeini are responsible for the resentments among various groups.
The Pahlavis have left a legacy of
discrimination and ethnic cleansing, a legacy continued by Khomeinists. This
legacy has reproduced the mirror image among our many communal groups that
the only way to be safe from these genocidal policies is to have
a "nation-state" of
their own. The policies of the Pahlavi regime and the fundamentalist
regime are not polar opposite; rather they are mirror images. The
phrase "mirror image" implies
similarity of policies in all their essential aspects except on one policy where
the two policies are opposite reflections. Whether in their ethnic policies or
gender policies or myriad of other essential aspects, the Pahlavi and fundamentalists
were quite similar with the difference being the mere reflections.
The defeat of Constitutionalists and the consolidation
of power by the highly dictatorial rule of Reza Shah (1925-1941)
witnessed two contradictory impacts.
On the one hand, independent journals and groups were destroyed. On the other
hand, the authoritarian state imposed its conception of identity. Let's take
the example of women's identity. Reza Shah banned wearing the Islamic hijab
and the police were ordered to tear off women's hijabs and beat them if they
came
to the streets covering their hair.
Under Reza Shah's rule, women, like other
sectors of the society, lost the right to express themselves and dissent
was harshly repressed. Khomeini (like Reza Shah) refused to accept
the right of
women to have their own organizations and imposed his notion of proper
identity on
women. Khomeini (like Reza Shah) ordered women to do as he wished and ordered
the coercive apparatuses to arrest and beat up women who refused. Under the Pahlavis and fundamentalists, the state
imposed its version of proper identity from above. The polar opposite
of Pahlavist-Khomeinist policies
would
be pluralism of identity, constitutionalism, democracy, freedom of expression,
individual liberties, rule of law, respect for human rights, autonomy of
the individual, and civil society. Pahlavi and Khomeinist regimes are different
forms of ethnic cleansing and dictatorship. The opposite of these would
be pluralism
and democracy.
We need to learn the lessons of how Tsarist Russian
and then Soviet policies finally ended up in the disintegration
of USSR into 15 independent countries.
Either we continue the racist and authoritarian policies of the Pahlavis
and Khomeinists, or we come up with a new and pluralist policies that
would bring
all Iranians into a republic that is democratic and where there is no
discrimination against any ethnic, linguistic, or religious group.
It is up to those of us those who value the territorial
integrity of Iran, pluralism, and democracy to stand up to Pahlavists-Khomeinists
and condemn
all forms of
discrimination against ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups. We
need
to find a formula that all Iranians can live in one country, with our
territorial integrity
protected, where no one is deprived of their rights to political power,
linguistic freedom, religious freedom, and other civil liberties. It
is much more preferable
to have our Azeri ham-mihanan say "Yashasun Iran" in their beautiful
Azeri language than either separate from Iran or be forced into a racist
subjugation. Same with all other Iranians.  Democracy and ethnic and linguistic
pluralism are compatible. It is not easy, but the answer to our problems
and dilemmas are not to follow dictatorial policies
of Pahlavists and Khomeinists. Identity is a complex and dynamic process.
Members of a society encompass a plethora of identities. In Iran, we have
numerous
ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups. Moreover, some are religiously
devout, agnostic,
atheist, or mixed beliefs. Some are traditional, some modern, and some
a combination.
If Iran is to become democratic, we need to condemn
the dictatorial policies
of the Pahlavis and Islamic fundamentalists, and we need to embrace plurality
and tolerance of identities. And most significant of all, to respect the
rights of the individual to choose his or her identity or identities and
reject the
authoritarian ideologies of Pahlavism and Islamic fundamentalism that have
imposed their anti-democratic vision on the rest of the population. Author
Masoud
Kazemzadeh, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Political
Science at Utah Valley State College. He is the author of Islamic
Fundamentalism, Feminism, and Gender Inequality in Iran Under
Khomeini (Lanham, MD: University Press of American, 2002).
Endnotes
[1] On the role of Iranian Nazis in the Pahlavi regime see: Masoud
Kazemzadeh, "The
Day Democracy Died: The 50th Anniversary of the CIA Coup in Iran," Khaneh:
Iranian Community Newspaper, vol. 3, no. 34 (October 2003). This article can
be accessed on the Internet here.
On the relationship between Reza Shah and Hitler's regime and Reza Shah's fascistic
policies against minorities see: Ervand Abrahamian, Iran Between
Two Revolutions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), pp. 163-165.
[2]
Iranian Studies, vol. 32, no. 1 (Winter 1999), p. 164.
[3] For an excellent
brief article see: Ramin Kamran, "Deltangi
Baraaye Reza Shah".
For a detailed account see: Mohammad Gholi Majd, Great Britain and
Reza Shah: The Plunder of Iran, 1921-1941(Gainesville, FL: University Press
of Florida,
2001).
[4] Ellen Grigsby, Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political
Science, 2nd ed., (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2002), p.
58.
[5] Grigsby, ibid., p. 50.
[6] Steven L. Spiegel, et al., World Politics
in a New Era, 3rd ed., (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2004),
p. 700.
[7] Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib, Peak of Eloquence, Nahjul Balagha, Sermons,
Letters and Saying of Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib, translated by Sayed
Ali Reza, introductory
notes by Syed Mohamed Askari Jafery, 6th edition (Elmhurst, New
York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., 1996). pp. 302-304.
[8] Don Peretz, The
Middle East Today, 5th ed., (New York: Praeger, 1988), p. 39.
[9] Interview
with Dr. Jalil SazgarNejad in Roznameh Iran, Tir 25 and 26, 1380 (Iranian
calendar) published in Iran, and placed
on the internet.
[10] Middle East Watch, Guardians of Thought:
Limits on Freedom of Expression in Iran (New York: Human
Rights Watch, August
1993), p.
123.
.................... Say
goodbye to spam!
*
*
|
Two sides of the same coin
