Panorama: Iranian Revolution

Dutch documentary filmed in 1979

Part 1:



Part 2:



Part 3:



Part 4:



Part 5:


05-Feb-2010
Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Ghormeh SabziCommentsDate
Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day
5
Dec 02, 2012
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day
2
Dec 01, 2012
Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day
2
Nov 30, 2012
more from Ghormeh Sabzi
 
AlexInFlorida

Secular Democratic Republic Has No Chance Of Success

by AlexInFlorida on

Because as Jefferson Said

Democracy cannot exist with ignorant people.

We are not ready yet in 2010  

Feb 11th Demonstrations and IRI Government Mass Support proved democracy is a pipe dream for now.  Since after 31 years of poverty, humilation, loss of freedoms increased hardship people can not move from Islamic Ignorance they never will.


AlexInFlorida

Truth is easy to see but too painful

by AlexInFlorida on

Alex

Monarchy is the worst form of government for Iranians, except for all others. 

Since in Iran it has been proven that monarchy approaches both
freedom and the democratic ideal far better than democracies... as we
see in Iran under the shah vs islamic republic.

This is a Painful Truth for pro-democrats, to accept that the
islamic republic is a democratic reality that the majority wanted and
brought it about.

Democratic governments do not guarantee freedom, in fact it is a
false belief that democracy and freedom go hand in hand and can only
come about by looking at selective evidence and not the entirity of
data across the pages of history.

Islamic Republic as most people know is more democratic than even
the state of Israel.  Unlike Iran, Israel was brought about by only
considering the views of the jews and not all the people living in the
area. 

At least Islamic republic was created by the democratic principal of
majority rule while allowing all the various views to be represented. 
The democratic Islamic Republic is however a tyranny since it's
inception until today, unlike Israel which does provide Freedom for
Jews.

What the Green movement does not address, because most Iranians are
not conscious of, is that Iranians want Freedom more than democracy,
the kind of freedom they enjoyed for the first time from the Shahs
era.  Iranians tell their children how much better life was in the
hands of the shah and his team and they miss this very much within
Iran. 

And in a perfect world Iranians would want both freedom and
democratic government, but at a gradual pace that is relavent to the
possiblities of the iranian people, while not sacrificing their
Freedom. Today they don't even have freedom to go to the next step.

And that is what they are lacking, Freedom, the ability to have
choices without coercion, manipulation and deceit.  Real choices
however unappealing that will enhance ones life, not undermine it.

To think that Iranians blew away the Shah that worked his entire
life to bring them Freedom that they had not enjoyed before, to the
point where unlike 95% of the world in 1983 Iranians would have enjoyed
guaranteed health care, education and employment or government
assistance if no work could be found is shocking.  I live in America
and we don't have Freedom that good.

I hope people learned that Revenge is not so delicious. And that
true success is learning to enjoy life and not feeling inadequate
because some people are becoming extremely rich and then being
vindictive, mean and nasty. 


benross

خانم محترم

benross


این که شما مرا نوکر این و آن خطاب کنید به من بر نمی‌خورد. چیزی که به من بر می‌خورد تداوم وجود این واژه‌های فئودالی مانند کلفت و نوکر در زبان فارسی و در ذهنیت شماست. پروژهٔ سیاسی که من از آن دفاع می‌کنم، این فرهنگ فئودالی را ریشه‌کن خواهد کرد. بنا بر این احتمالاً ما بنا هم نیست که با یکدیگر همراه باشیم.

توقع دارید که برای ایستادگی در مقابل شاه ستمکار ابراز پشیمانی کنند و بگویند که گوه خوردنند؟

مردم سالهای سال است که حرفشان را زده‌اند. فعالان سیاسی اما بحث دیگری است. من از هیچکس هیچ توقعی ندارم. من تنها به این نگاه می‌کنم که پیش از انقلاب ایرانیان خارج از کشور توریست بودند و یا دانشجو. امروز میلیونها پناهنده هستند. آنها هم که نتوانستند از ایران بگریزند، در داخل ایران ناظر بوده‌ام. همه و همه چه به زبان بی‌زبانی و چه آشکارا بر زبان می‌آوردند که گُه خورده‌اند. گُه خوردن خجالت ندارد. ماستمالی کردن آن چرا.

شاه هم گُه خورده بود. اطرافیانش هم گُه خورده بودند. مردم هم گُه خورده‌اند. بیان واضحیات که به علم غیب نیازی ندارد. تفاوت در این است که چه شاه و چه مردم، در قبال این گُه خوری راه چاره می‌جویند. برخی دیگر اما می‌گویند گُه خوردیم و خیلی هم چسبید!

نمونهٔ آخردر این سایت بسیار است. اما به نظر می‌رسد که اگر واقعاً این گُه خوری اینقدر دلچسب بود، انگیزهٔ چندانی برای حضور در این سایت وجود نمی‌داشت. 


Noosh Afarin

آهورای گرامی؛

Noosh Afarin


 


سپاسگزار از محبت شما، و خوشحالم که انسانهای آزاده و شریف زیادی همچون شما را در این سایت داریم.
سربلند و شاد باشید.

 

 

 

 

 


Noosh Afarin

benross

by Noosh Afarin on

 

سردمداران حکومت مستبد پادشاهی در راستای سودهای شخصی و جناحی و بقای خود، کشور ما را به سوی پرتگاهی عظیم هدایت کردنند که متاسفانه برای کور دلان قابل درک و فهم نیست. شعر پروین اعتصامی گویای درد و رنج مردم در دوران رضا شاه است. انديشه های انسانی پروین اعتصامی در دفاع از فرودستان جامعه و انتقادات اجتماعی بود، پروین اعتصامی زنی صریح اللهجه و صادق بود که اعتقاد داشت باید از سر جان به جانبداری از حقیقت برخاست و در دفاع از مردم ستمدیده سخن حق را به هر قیمتی به زبان آورد.

وقت سخن مترس و بگو آنچه گفتنی است
شمشیر روز معرکه زشت است در نیام!

 اگر میخواهید واقع بین و ایراندوست باشید بايد نگاهی به دوران رضاخان  داشته باشيد. رضاخان در آغاز کار، نه ثروتی داشت و نه قطعه زمينی، اما با ادامه سلطنت و بسط قدرت، املاک و زمين های زيادی را در حاصلخيزترين نقاط کشور تصاحب و ثروتی هنگفت کسب کرد؛ چنان که به هنگام ترک ايران در سال 1320، بزرگ ترين مالک و مافیای زمين خوار ايران بود.

رضاخان با مصادره اموال و املاک افراد و ضبط اموال مجهول المالک، خريد املاک از مالکان عمده با قيمت های بسيار نازل، قبول هدايا، خريد مستغلات و اراضی پايين تر از قيمت بازار از مالکن مرعوب، تحت فشار گذاشتن مالکان از راه های گوناگون مثل قطع آب تا قبول قيمت نازل، به زور شلاق و شکنجه و راههای ديگر، به بزرگ ترين فئودال زمين و مافیای زمین خوار و انباشت ثروت ايران تبديل شد. آن گرگ برای غضب املاک سيری نداشت، در دوره 17 ساله سلطنت رضاشاه، بالغ بر 44,000 سند مالکيت به نام او صادر شد و بعدها او ان املاک دزدیده از مردم را به نام ١١ فرزندانش منتقل میکند. بنا بر رفتار خصمانه و قلدری رضا شاه، بانو پروین اعتصامی پادشاهان دزد را به گرگهایی تشبیه نموده که لباس شبان بر تن کرده اند.

حال شما با همان رفتاری که از اربابانتان یاد گرفتید، مردم،  مردمی را که در اوج فقر و نداشتن امکانات پیش پا افتاده ای مانند( آب و برق و مسکن و بهداشت و غیره) بر علیه ظلمان ایستادگی کرده اند، را همانند گوسفندانی میدانید، و توقع دارید که برای ایستادگی در مقابل شاه ستمکار ابراز پشیمانی کنند و بگویند که گوه خوردنند؟ آیا این رفتار شما فرقی با بسیجیان سینه چاک شاه خامنه ای دارد؟ دوباره تکرار میکنم؛ گوه را تک تک خاندان پهلوی خوردنند به اضافه طرفداران وطن فروششان.  بسیار خوشحالم که دودمان آن سیه دلان کیثف بر هم ریخت. حسرت حکومت بر ایرانیان را باخود به گور خواهند برد و تاریخ اعتبارشان ٣١ سال پیش به ا تمام رسید. ایرانیان تحت هیچ شرایطی بعد از انهدام جمهوری اسلام، احتیاج به نوه ء رضا قلدر ندارنند.

 

 

 

 

 


Ahura

"راهزنان دخل ولایت برند"

Ahura


نوش آفرین عزیز گل گفتی‌ و در سفتی. فرهنگ استبداد ما  گروهی نوکر صفت، متعصب، بی‌ اطلاع، و فاسد در خدمت دکاندارن تاجدار یا عمامه بسر پرورش میدهد. شاه و خدمه‌اش با دخل ولایت فرار میکنند و بساط گسترده استبداد صدای آزادیخواهان را  باری دیگر  خاموش کرده عمّامه بسرها بتخت سلطنت میرسند. حکومت "سایه خدا" به خلافت "جانشین خدا" تبدیل میشود. رجاله‌ها فکل کراوات را کنار گذاشته ته ریش میگذارند و لکاته‌ها سرخاب سفیداب را زیر چادر و مقنعه پنهان میکنند. مردم مسخ شده هم از ترس عاقبت به جهل مرکب و در تلاش معاش به خفت و خواری بیشتری کشیده میشوند.

در این دیار  فرنگ هم "شاه الله ایها" و "حزب‌ا‌لله ایها" به تحریف واقعیتها و به باز نویسی تاریخ طبق میل خود مشغول و سرگرمند. همانطوری که شما گویا و زیبا  نوشته‌اید " مرحم زخم ایران و ایرانیان آزادیست."


benross

نوش‌آفرین عزیز

benross


با تشکر از شعر زیبای اعتصامی

من معمولاً هنر را با جدل سیاسی مخلوط نمی‌کنم. این برازندهٔ هنرمند نیست و چه بسا توهینی به اوست. از اثر هنری به تناسب ظرفیت فردی‌ام استفاده کرده و خود را سیراب می‌کنم . پدر پروین از مبارزان جنبش مشروطه بود و او و پدرش همان چیزی را می‌خواستند که همهٔ ما می‌خواهیم و قانون اساسی مشروطه پادشاهی هم سند شتر گاو پلنگ تلاش‌های تاریخی تجدد گرایانهٔ ما بوده و هست.

اما در مورد کسانی که گُه خورده‌اند و به رویشان نمی‌آورند، نوش جانشان. آن چیزی که من می‌گویم این است که ما یک قانون اساسی مشروطهٔ پادشاهی داریم که تنها سند معتبر و مشروع تجددگرایی در ایران است. ما که تحول دموکراتیک در این سند تاریخی را نادیده گرفته‌ایم، گُه زیادی خورده‌ایم و نتیجه‌اش را هم داریم می‌بینیم. اگر کسی آن را انکار کند نه دمکرات است و نه مخاطب من. 


Schahram

Dear Abarmard and Benyamin Jaan by Darius Kadivar on Sat Feb 06,

by Schahram on

Thanks for this brilliant and clear analysis, one of the best in recent years. Pointing out, that it was the middle class, which started that mess, is a very important aspect. Already The Kennedy Iran - Desktop adviser pointed at the beginning of the sixties out, that there was a restless middle class grwong, with potential for revolution.

Schahram


Noosh Afarin

benross

by Noosh Afarin on

اگربخواهیم فرمانروایان دیکتاتور  را به حیوانات تشبیه کنیم البته (بلانسبت) حیوانات، فکر می کنم تعدادی چند جغد بر روی کره زمین داریم. زیرا جغد های انسان نما در قالب پادشاه فقط روی خرابه ها و خرابیها می نشینند و برای بقای  قدرت خود آوازهای شوم سر میدهند. هر نظری از طرف افرادی که «گوشه ایی از تاریخ شاهان دیکتاتور را  بیان میکنند»،موجب دل پریشانی و درب و داغون و لت و پارتر شدن  طرفداران اندک و باقی مانده رژیم دیکتاتور شاه سابق میشود، و سیل کامنتهای زهر دار از روی بغض و کینه آن بت پرستان سینه چاک نمایانگر سرسپردگی بیش نیست. حال انکه خاندان پهلوی با معذرت خواهی کردن از گناهان گذشته ویا اینکه اعلام کنند  «گوه خوردنند» و انهم گوهی به بزرگی این کره خاکی، دیگر جایگاهی در ایران نخواهند داشت.

 شعر اشك يتيم، تقدیمیست به آنان که معبود خود را هیچوقت نشناخته اند:

روزی گذشت پادشهی از گذرگهی
فرياد شوق بر سر هر كوی و بام خاست

پرسيد زان ميانه يكی كودكی يتيم
كاين تابناك چيست كه بر تاج پادشاست

آن يك جواب داد چه دانيم ما كه چيست
پيداست آنقدر كه متاعی گرانبهاست

نزديك رفت پيرزنی گوژپشت و گفت
اين اشك ديده ی من و خون دل شماست

ما را به رخت و چوب شبانی فريفته است
اين گرگ سالهاست كه با گله آشناست

آن پارسا كه ده خَرَد و مُلك، رهزن است
آن پادشا كه مال رعيّت خورد، گداست

بر قطره ی سرشك يتيمان نظاره كن
تا بنگری كه روشنی گوهر از كجاست

پروين، به كجروان سخن از راستی چه سود
كو آن چنان كسی كه نرنجد ز حرف راست

پروين اعتصامی

                         

 

 

 

 

 

 


xyz

On the series

by xyz on

I am just interested where is the pretty lady now? In Iran or abroad? Dressed much more conservatively or the same? And as someone from India, I read a bit and found it funny that Iranians were shouting "marz barg Liberalism" in 1979. Folks, sorry, but there's a saying that be careful what you ask for, you might just get it in life. And I am really interested in knowing as to whether the revolution has really made Iranians more religious and devout? Have Iranians become holier?


Parsagarda

Revenge is so sweet

by Parsagarda on

Watching them wave their fists, yelling death to this and that just like the ones that march today is so ironic. Feels great to see them beat on each other again these days. The same idiots who brought these beasts to power are now crying foul and getting beat on. They wasted 30 years of my life in exile away from the home and culture I so loved. To those in Iran I say payback is a bitch and what goes around comes around. 

What is it with these masses? No political intelligence. No willingness to compromise. No tolerance for others nor any respect for the law. Are we the lesser form among humans? I wonder often.

Over thirty years have past but the madness continues. Are there any sane people in this tribe?

 


الشیطان

Dictatorship of Shah and Sheikh

by الشیطان on

It is despotism that has cultivated a culture of servitude, corruption, prejudice, intolerance, and ignorance in Iran. There is the absence of democratic institutions and culture in our history which has brought us from the dictatorship of Shah to that of Sheikh.

Neither denial nor xenophobia can explain away our predicaments. The onus is on us.  


jasonrobardas

Our People

by jasonrobardas on

   were totally uninformed about islam and the consequences of a theocracy . 

     During the Shah's regime ,  They had been kept in the dark about politics , social issues , political parties and organizations .  They dared not even discuss politics in the open . 

  This is why they whole heartedly welcomed  the Akhoonds and believed their false  promises .

      Thus the emergence of the islamic faschism in Iran and the people being once again suppressed by tyranny .


MRX1

I am sorry

by MRX1 on

but when you watch these kind of video's you reach to a conclusion that people demonstrating on the streets in 79 where f*ed up bunch, like  robots following order, repeating things , abseloutley no LOGIC what so ever, just hot air , empty emotions.... Frankly both Shah and Bakhtiar were  way too much, too modern, too sophisticated and too classy for Iran and history has proved that.


spatima

@DK i agree with your comments about Bakhtiyar

by spatima on

Although i strongly disagree with the monarchists and find Reza Pahlavi to be a joke, I agree with Mr. Kadivar's comments in regards to Shapour Bakhtiyar.

He would have been a proper alternative if he was chosen at the right time. Bakhtiyar could had reformed the system and be its main transitioning figure. Another way would have been refusing the Shah's offer and instead looking to unite the National Front under a secular banner rather than Bazargan's religious one. Of course these analysis are all after the fact.

In hope of a Free, Independent and Secular Iran


Benyamin

LOL

by Benyamin on

That is a funny comment BenRoss....lol


Darius Kadivar

Benyamin Jaan Not at all

by Darius Kadivar on

No I didn't take offense at all. 

No worries.

have a nice weekend and beh omideh Democracy Vagheyee !

Cheers,

DK


Benyamin

To Dk

by Benyamin on

I meant no disrespect by my last comment I just realized you are an avid loyalist or monarckist I see no harm in that. It is time to welcome all kinds of beliefs and idealogies as I am religious minority myself!

And don`t ge me wrong I do agree with your comments about Bakhtiar and that he was our last "bakht" to democracy 30 years ago. And also what you said about green movement is  true.

I hope you don`t miss my point in all of that.

cheers 


benross

Great reminder for the new generation

by benross on

Unfortunately for Iranians, the Islamic Wave was the largest wave during the '79 uprising and all other movements were joined with them.

And the poor things, they weren't even dreaming of their own dictatorship of the proletariat!

We all wanted democracy and we were duped... yeh right!

As I said before, what does it take to say 'Goh Khordam'? 


Darius Kadivar

Dear Benyamin

by Darius Kadivar on

I did not say the Revolution was not about obtaining Freedom.

I Just said that It was NOT Necessary to have a Revolution and in such a violent proportion to obtain THAT Freedom. Our Intelligenstia and people lacked at the time what the Green Movement doesn't lack today and that is: PATIENCE !

In addition the people today are Far more MATURE than the Pre 1979 generation because they earned it dearly due to their parents mistakes and POOR CHOICE.

Again because unlike today the regime was not based on an ideology but an Institution which was the Monarchy which could have been reformed into a purely Constitutional One like in the UK or Spain.

Unlike the Current Turbaned Dynasty, The Shah changed governments and Prime Ministers in order to find a peaceful solution to the crisis but the violent Revolutionaries did not want any form of compromise.

To make it short, I suggest you to listen to the debate on VOA Persian Tasveer Khabar today with Dariush Homayoun and other guests on this very subject.

Best,

DK

PS: Feel Free to call me a Royalist Apologist I am one and not ashamed of it ;0)


Benyamin

To DK

by Benyamin on

Thank you for your comment.

I already said that Shah was a better person than that of Khomeini! But not ideal and from what I read in your comment you also agree implicitly.

My comment was not what went wrong in Iran prior to revolution, my comment was about what happend to revolution. My mother is a monarckist and she has always been. Her brother has  a few pictures taken WITH the late Shah. My father knew a few hot shots in the DARBAR, having said that I am entitled to my opinion and believe that the revolution was in fact about freedom otherwise why would Khomeini make a speachlike that at the time of his arrival to Iran? he was rallying the people and using them for his own purpose and his purpose alone and the rest is history. Khoimeini betrayd every single Iranian even those that were/are Islamist, because everyone revolted for greater freedom and respect.

I was only 8 years old at that time. So I made no decision for anyone or anything, my family never got involved except my father and he was following Dr. Sanjabi as I know and he said I never liked or trusted Islamists!!!

My mother was against it all and I remember she was swearing at the demostrators calling them "traitors"

And it has been 30 years my mother says "I told you so"....lol

please keep your resposes a bit shorter it is obvious that you love the Monarcks.

Thanks


Darius Kadivar

Dear Abarmard and Benyamin Jaan

by Darius Kadivar on

I agree with You Abarmard about Bakhtiar's little chances at the time it came to power ( which I also said was too late by the time he took office) given that the Revolution like a Snow Ball had by that time grown larger and larger. But I disagree with you Benyamin in your assessment that the Revolution was Just and Necessary and here is why.

By the time Bakhtiar was named Prime Minister the only card he could play and use was to ask the Shah to leave in order to calm the spirits and capitalize on this so called victory to tell the people: "Look you wanted him to leave and I made him leave now let's try and sort the real debate what kind of democratic regime do you want ?"

The problem was that to ask for departure of the Shah was probably a fatal error that at the time of Bakhtiar coming to office was by then simply inevitable and most probably the only logical thing to do. However it doomed Bakhtiars chances at the same time for it created animosity against his government amongst the military which were the only people who could maintain order in this chaotic situation.

I don't recall the exact chronology of the events and would need to look back at the papers and historical publications since but I think that a number of events precipitated upon the Shah's departure such as the Homafars and technical crew of the Army joining the Revolutionaries and the Iranian Ambassador to Paris who went to see Khomeiny and offered to Surrender ( very much like today's diplomats of the IRI in Sweden). So the revolutionaries felt empowered ( who wouldn't ? in their shoes so would I).

However had Bakhtiar been named earlier at best a year at worst a few months earlier, it would have been seen as a great concession on behalf of the Shah and Bakhtiar would not have been in a situation where he would have needed to ask the Shah to leave.

If you recall the debates in Parliment however heated were broadcast on TV already under the different Prime Ministers including the Military government of Azhary where they tried to explain their policy for all the see.

If the Shah had named Bakhtiar as Prime Minister at the Time of Sharif Emami ( who only confused everyone) it would have distributed many cards in a more constructive direction. Firstly because Bakhtiar was a member of the Opposition and had been himself imprisoned under the Shah. He was a Constitutionalist at the same time as being a Nationalist and people would have understood that something had changed in the power play between the Shah and the people's demands.

I clearly remember very much like today with the current uprising that people were not demanding the Shah's death or the overthrow of the Regime in the early days of the revolution. The demands were to see an end to what they saw as corruption ( which was not necessarily more or less corrupt than in certain perfectly democratic government: a look at today's scandal regarding British MP's spendings), bureaucracy, lack of political Freedom ( but more importantly Political responsability to be handed to civil society rather than a political elite chosen by the Shah and his interest groups ) and failed or inapropriate economic policies such as enormous arms purchases that people felt were disproportionate given that other sectors of the economy demanded urgent help ( in retrospect The War with IRaq shortly after only ironically and sadly justifies these spendings).

As Such There Were Legitimate Demands for a Change in policy but NOT in Regime change. Bakhtiar and many secular moderate groups understood this and had drawn lessons from the events of 1953 and the Coup that followed. They new that they had to demand change from within the system without directly challenging the Shah's entire Regime. That is one of the reasons that the likes of Sanjabi and Forouhar distanced themselves from the Very Start from Bakhtiar months before even being named Prime Minister and prefered to create a coalition with Bazargan and other religious opponents.

Had this group cooperated with Bazargan and not seeked short term political opportunism aiming at toppling the Shah and the entire system in the name of Revolution by joining a figurehead like Khomeiny things would have been entirely different.

What I am personally convinced by however is that had Bakhtiar been Prime Minister at the time of Sharif Emami or even later but much earlier than when he was finally accepted as the last chance solution, He would have certainly made a difference and would have rallied most secular elements in society beyond the banned National Front ( which would have been reinstated and authorized to join parlimentary debates). There may even have been chances to see Bazargarn and other moderate relgious intellectuals join the Bakhtiar in a kind of National Salute goverment to put an end to the violence and crisis.

That was not to be and I do not think it was entirely the Shah's fault if Bakhtiar was not named earlier.

I do not believe in conspiracy theories even if the BBC and foreign powers did not facilitate the job of the Imperial regime. I do think however that two factors played against the Shah.

1) Weariness of Power: The Shah's illness must have played an incredibly discouraging part in his decision makings. I don't think he was unable to make important decisions but that he was terribly demoralized by the fast succession of events both dramatic ( violent protests) and at times unpredictable (cinema Rex burnings) as well as a rise in international pressure which made him doubt in the loyalty of the West in his regime. No one except him can be blamed for that and not preparing his own succession but that is alas the case of all authoritarian regimes which overtime become more and more isolated.

2) His incapacity to take a firm stance against the anarchy ( even if it meant to spill some blood) rather than immediately acknowledging the revolutionary demands as legitimate as he did in his controversial speach to the nation.  

This is why it is not exagerated to say that However a "dictator" in practice the Shah was No "Tyrant".

The Revolution in Iran in it's earliest stages was more similar to what France experienced in May 68 under De Gaulle.

It was an expression of Frustrations and a generational Clash between a young and thriving nation aspiring to change rather than merely Freedom. In French it is called "Ras Le Bol".

To respond to these Frustrations and at time legitimate demands serious reforms were necessary to bring about democratic change.

I also believe that the aged and fatally ill Shah by 1979 was not the young and enthusiastic man of the 1960's and the White Revolution.

Take a look at this PANORAMA on BBC in 1961 :

//news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8084000/8084860.stm

And the way people and the Shah speak about the Freedom of Political parties and the Press. It is striking how openly people expressed themselves at that stage because the country was boosted in it's hopes by the White Revolution and that the Shah had something to offer to his people in exchange for their foregiveness of the events of 1953.

However Unlike the Islamic Republic today, the Shah's regime did not rest upon an ideology but an institution which he embodied but which was not entirely dependant on his persona. The Constitution of 1906 was a first step towards reforming the Monarchy and domisticating it. 

The Shah's dictatorship was not a totalitarian state like Iran today where every aspect of people's lives was controlled. It did aim at Modernizing our society based on Western Principles which included women emancipation and that was something that was probably handled too quickly by his own father. But there were also attempts to respect traditions and by the mid seventies this was also felt in the TV Programs on national Television:

Women's Talk Show with Jaleh Kazemi and Singer Parissa (1978)

Where Modernism and Tradition could coexist harmoniously without necessarily becoming "Americanized" or "Westernized".

The country did have some serious social problems linked to modernization. Such as the exodus from villiages into towns and the neglect of agriculture in favor of heavy industry.

There were rising contrasts between rich and poor but the rich were amongst the middle class and not just the upper class or aristocracy and the so called 1000 families that were supposed to have run the country.

It was precisely this middle class that started the revolution and often at odds with those from poor classes who continued to support the Shah. We had a Baghboon aka garnder in Shiraz who hated the mullahs but loved the Shah because thanks to the Shah and the White Revolution and had managed to send his kids to school and was earning enough to buy a car instead of driving his motor cycle as he used to for many years when he would come to our hous. While fellow colleagues of My dad, university teachers, Doctors and engineers had become Revolutionary overnight when prior to that they were all kissing the Shah or Shahbanou's hands enthusiastically when they would visit the University in Shiraz.

There is also a difference between Traditional people from the villiages and Religious people. Not all the peasants were Religious. Many people who left for towns came for better opportunities but were often less religious than the clerics or Bazari Types. They had been exposed to medical help, social and scientific progress thanks to the Sepah Danesh and other developing programs. So they were not always hostile to modernity and therefore to their coutries leadership as some upper class or educated people in towns.

I do understand Some who may argue the same regarding the IRI today. The difference is that the Shah's regime however a dictatorial or authoritive one, was not based on ideological dogmas. It was at worst cult ridden in that the Shah was the decision maker on all important issues particularly the Army and Foreign policy. But on all other matters the government had much latitude and the country was not wasting it's ressources as it is today,

The Oil Revenues under the IRI in it's 30 years of existance have been 5 times those under the Shah's 38 years of reign. One can legitimately ask Where did all that money go ? Have our priorities been respected both economically and from a national point of view when we spend money on the Palestinian cause or terrorist activities ? Now that we can send one or two missiles or rockets to space with the help of the Chinese. I applaud the technical breakthrough and the competance of the scientists but to what purpose ? This would have been equally possible if the Revolution had not taken place and probably with more transparency than today. The IRI boasts that there are more people going to the university today than during the Shah. But who built the infrastructures in the first place ? It's no secret that in a generation our population doubled. Did we need to go through a revolution and see one million lives destroyed in a useless war with Iraq ( including using children to clear land mines by promising them Heaven with a plastic key) to reach the academic results we would have achieved anyways without the revolution ? ...

I wonder ,,,

The same young middle class family interviewed in this report, were probably the first to leave Iran for the sake of not sending their kids to war. Instead their Bagboon or Kolfat had to go to War or send their kids to clean the minefields.

Now People are not entirely to be blamed for haivng been unsatisfied with the Shah's long reign and presence in the political arena. But Not everyone suffered because of the SAVAK nor were people as concerned by economic difficulties to such a wide extent as France under King Louis XVI and Queen MArie Antoinette.

This distorted vision was enhanced by the Foreign press and many revolutionaries and obviously when one would compare the Persepolis Celebrations 9 years earlier with the Slums of southern Tehran by the late 70's the contrast would make any foreign journalist bitter or shocked.

Forgetting that the Slums you see also exist in democracies like Brazil. In addition this was not wide spread in the nation. We did have poor people and Tehran's growing population and at times incoherent building plans did not help sort such problems or put an end to such difficulties in time and adequately as they should have been.

However I don't consider this was a result of corruption but heavy bureaucracy and economic mismanagement.  The lack of Democracy did not help either. It is obvious that if Iran was a perfectly democratic society, and power was not as centralized, Parliment could have denounced such mismanagements and the mayor of Tehran would be held responsible or could have acted more immediately in seeing to these poor people's well being.

The point is that if there were mismanagements and no one can deny that, it did not justify a Revolution but at worst Reform. At least Not a destructive Revolution as the one we witnessed.

People like Bakhtiar understood this very early on that the key was to reform the institutions by organizing free elections, freeing the Press while maintaining the Framework of the State as it was.

Bakhtiar's last Interview:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWJc5bSSyUg 

He knew that the Shah's son (nor the Shahbanou) could not represent a Threat to a democratic transition given his young age if the Shah were to abdicate in his favor.

If you look at the age of the ministers from Hoveyda, Amouzegar, Sharif Emami, or the Military Azhari who became prime Minister they were all close to 60 years old. Bakhtiar was in his early 50's I think so it is obvious that the Political elite of the country needed to be more representative of the aspirations of the rising and young middle class as represented in this video.

 

Otherwise The Shah should have dealt with the miscontent the same way De Gaulle ( He admired) handled May 68. Or with Bakhtiar as Prime Minister but the Shah still as Head of State could have done the same with the support of the Army. But this could only have been done had he been named Prime Minister much earlier. 

Mai 68 Revolution:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcDCsCGdOm4&feature=related

Student Revolt in Mai 68:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDgF6FtG0oY

De Gaulle refuses to resign and Dissolves the Parliment and calls for a Referandum to put an end to the revolution:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDYPitnz9as

The latter spoke Firmly on radio saying he won't resign and even threatened to use the Army if the nation did not put an end to the "Chianlit" aka "The Shity Anarchy". Those were his own words.

After much violence from the Streets, De Gaulle managed to turn public opinion in his favor by being blunt and honest about the entire thing and he won.

Instead, the Shah did what De Gaulle Did in Algeria by making his disastrous speach " I heard the voice of the Revolution" but without abdicating for he was willing to step down from the political scene not to give up the Crown. This was misinterpreted by everyone just Life De Gaulles' "Je Vous Ai Compris" :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm0APfrflk  

But the tragedy was that the Shah was a dying man and that by the time Bakhtiar was chosen it was far too late to save the country from disaster and the Monarchy from falling apart unless some military took things in hand. But even that was discouraged by the American secret involvement with General Huyser far before Bakhtiar could even take office and speak to the Military. 

And the Shah's Departure and death in the months that followed had created the vaccum of Power that alas Only Khomeiny could replace.


mrramin

What was Missing THEN, and is Missing NOW

by mrramin on

After watching this documentary I realized what was missing then and NOW is a clear path or an end game to our struggle.   The Green Movement has yet to clarify what is it that I (As an Iranian) exactly should die for.  Basically there is no contract between the movement and the people.  This contract could come in the form of a new constitution for Iran.  I am not sure why after 31 years we still have not learned this LESSON.  I guess we have to wait some more.


Abarmard

Dear DK

by Abarmard on

The way I understand it, in a society when the wave is forming, it gets harsher and louder to hit the shore, calm and return. Bakhtiyar was a perfect answer to Iranian quest for democracy and independence, but he came too late. He was there when the wave was at its hights. No one could stop or control the wave that had already formed. The wave had to reach the shores. Bakhtiyar's actions were ignored by general public.

Unfortunately for Iranians, the Islamic Wave was the largest wave during the '79 uprising and all other movements were joined with them. During those days, the understanding of many social groups were that the democratic government will be shared among all of them, because once the "dictator" leaves, no matter what, we will be better off.

No one during that time trusted that Bakhtiyar would continue his democratic moves if they pulled back. Not possible. The loss was on the nation, since revolution would cut the roots of the past and starts a new, which is huge waste of resources and time.


Benyamin

With all due respect.....

by Benyamin on

The revolution itself was not an idiotic event, it did happen for noble reasons for grand reasons and it did happen to change Iran from what it was to something better it was a reset button and reboot ALL of its resources.

But the revolution turned Islamic because the leader was not honest, because the leader dooped everyone even those around him. He killed and killed and killed and now his followers are doing the same. THE REVOLUTION OF 1979 NEVER LANDED SAFELY AND IT HAS NOT ENDED!

People of Iran didnot revolt for one person, the revolted for ALL. But it was hijacked by ONE person and turned in to a killing machine.

I do agree that Shah was better that Islamists but by all means Shah was not ideal.


IIAF

Revolution of Idiots, by Idiots, for Idiots.

by IIAF on

Hope your happy now, there was more to come, like you said....


Darius Kadivar

Very Interesting I just wonder what the educated think now ?

by Darius Kadivar on

They got rid of Bakhtiar and Hell Broke Open with the executions and unnecessary violence ( which ironically Banisadre here seems to say should be avoided and which the Bazargan government most probably did not wish were it not for the radical elements amongst the revolutionaries and particularly it's leader Khomeiny himself who wished to see blood spill ).

It is indeed a Tragedy and certainly a miscalculation on the part of the Shah or his entourage that Bakhtiar was not named Prime Minister months earlier for it would have certainly helped rally the more moderate intelligenstia as the couple interviewed in this report and the secular elements in society Like Here:

Pro Bakhtiar Demonstrations:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vas_tvGZgWE

rather than seeing them endorse the Revolution enthusiastically.

Alas in Revolutionary situations or Anarchy as much as Individuals THINK But MASSES Don't !

Thank you for sharing this excellent documentary which shows the paradoxes of the time and dillemas between secularist revolutionaries and religious revolutionaries at the time.

Alas we know today who ultimately won over the other ! ...