Hamid Karimianpour

In 1879, Hormuzd Rassam, a British archeologist, found in the ruin of Babylon what became known as the Cyrus Cylinder and viewed by some experts, mostly Iranians, as one of the first charters of human rights. The cylinder was made of clay, on which a text was written in Akkadian Cuneiform script on the order of Cyrus. The text contains a declaration of the king’s power as the conquering force and statements about the rights of the indigenous people to continue to live in peace in accordance with their own cultures and to worship their own gods.

Several Western experts have disputed the suggestion that the cylinder represents one of the first charters of human rights, and as usual some Iranians suspect that the Western criticism may be a smear campaign against their cultural heritage. Most of the criticism has been launched in the past ten or fifteen years, when the relation between Iran and the West has been tense politically and culturally. Perhaps, there is a measure of double standards in rejecting out of hand the cylinder as an early human rights document while crediting the Frenchmen for the concept of passionate love and not Kama Sutra, or the Americans for first working democracy in the world and not the ancient Greek, or Athenians for the roots of philosophy and not the Middle East or North Africa from where the Athenians imported many of their own ideas. The free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, discusses the arguments in favor and against the cylinder as a human rights document. Noticeably, about four fifth of the discussion is devoted to arguments opposed to this idea and only four lines admit arguments in favor. But if there is a smear campaign, Iranians have contributed to it by exaggerating the facts about the cylinder. In recent years the text of the cylinder has been faked or sexed up presumably by pro-monarchists to fit their political agenda. The original text says more about the Cyrus’s power and his ambition as the mightiest king of the ancient world than the rights of his people. These exaggerations aside, there are good arguments to maintain that the cylinder is indeed an early example of a human rights charter.

Contenders claim that the text on the cylinder is incomparable with the modern notion of human rights, and that claiming it to be one of the first bills of human rights is the product of an Iranian fantasy. This criticism hinges on a simple misunderstanding. No Iranian expert has ever claimed that the cylinder represents a bill of human rights similar to the contemporary Charter of Human Rights as formulated by the UN in the modern era, but that it was one of the first known texts of its kind that ushered in an understanding of the rights of people under a ruler. The stone tools that were invented in pre-historic time were also incomparable with the technologically advanced machinery of the modern era, yet it makes sense to catalogue them as the first tools made by man.

Some analysts have pointed out that the last shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, promoted the cylinder in 1970s, supposedly to enhance the image of the Iranian monarchy. This is a plausible suggestion given the shah’s enormous propaganda machine and his aspiration to become a great regional power, the so-called King of the kings, but this theory is of little value with regard to the historical meaning of the cylinder; much less Cyrus’s actual management of the Persian Empire in a relatively humane way. It is not unusual for politicians and heads of states to inflate national symbols for political gains. Take for instance candidate Obama’s praising words in his presidential election campaign that only in the US a candidate like him could have a chance of winning an election for the highest office. He broke phenomenally with the traditions of negative campaigning in American politics and chose instead to maintain a positive orientation. Regardless of political affiliation, most observers agree that Barrack Obama as a presidential candidate galvanized millions of Americans with his message of hope for everyone including those of disadvantaged background. In his person Americans found the personification of the very ideal of American values and democracy. Yet to his message of optimism and hope there was – probably inadvertently – a peculiar aspect.

Contrary to the candidate Obama’s claim that only this country can allow a person with an unconventional or disadvantaged background to run for high office, there is ample historical evidence to suggest otherwise. Female politicians have typically been unconventional contesters in the traditional patriarchal societies, yet many women, including Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan or the Welsh born prime minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, have reached the high office; not to mention the many female heads of state that the European and Latin-American countries have seen for several decades. Benazir Bhutto was from a privileged and well-connected background. She was an Oxford educated daughter of a former Pakistani prime minister. But for her to take the chief position as a woman in a conservative Muslim country was a great accomplishment. Already the medieval Muslims granted near-unlimited upward mobility to their slaves. Shamsud-din Iltutmish provides an intriguing example among others. He was a Turkic sultan who had initially been purchased as a slave by another ex-slave around eight centuries ago. Iltutmish displayed an outstanding intelligence in his young age and quickly gained the trust of the powerful elite who paved his way to the highest post in the royal court. Though not popularly elected in the same manner as a US president, his rise to power demonstrated a curiously tolerant culture. Perhaps even President Ahmadinejad would be able to boast that only in Iran a sandal wearing son of a blacksmith could become the president. Yet, none of these leaders celebrated their accomplishments as loudly as it is customary in America. Undoubtedly, President Obama’s election victory as the first black candidate to gain the highest office was a monumental achievement, but it was far from unique in the global context where unorthodox candidates have risen to power numerous times throughout the history.

President Obama’s amplification of his ascent to power does not, however, nullify the significance of his election victory completely. His was remarkably important considering the time and political culture of America. Likewise, the shah’s embroidery of the cylinder does not diminish the actual significance of the cylinder considering the time, in which it was written.

The shah had an urgent reason to inflate the truth about the cylinder: his own poor records. The dissident groups in Iran incessantly attacked the shah for his violations of human rights. If the shah could not match the greatness of Cyrus, he needed to step up his pro-monarchy propaganda, not decrease it. Yet this does not change the status of the cylinder as one of the earliest symbols of respect for human rights. Even the shah was careful not to equate the cylinder with the modern declaration of human rights. He described it only as an antecedent to the modern notion of human rights.  

It is widely believed that Cyrus matched his words with deeds. Under his watch the Persian Empire flourished as a relative haven for freedom in the ancient world. This freedom was restricted to practicing one’s choice of religion and living in peace, not engaging in politics. Cyrus was after all a totalitarian ruler, who amassed political power in his own hands, but he cultivated the rights of people to a degree unusual in his time. To this extent the cylinder can indeed be seen as one of the first of ancient texts to grant human rights, though only relatively basic rights.

Hamid Karimianpour is the author of Nation Building or Democracy by Other Means.