 |
| Reza Shah and Iranian Primordialism |
As reported, on December 20th of this year, Mr. Nasser Pourpirar presented his findings regarding a historical event known as the "Purim massacre," which, according to him, involved the Achaemenid Empire and is also mentioned in the Jewish holy book, the "Torah."
First of all, it is necessary to clarify that whether or not this horrific massacre actually occurred does not change the fundamental inhumanity of despotic regimes of any type and in any era, especially since, without the Purim event, there exists another example, as Mr. Pourpirar states, in the form of the "Behistun Inscription," a document from the Achaemenid period. In this inscription, it is recorded that the Achaemenid king Darius the Great faced widespread uprisings and resistance from the subjugated nations across the empire. In response, the Achaemenids resorted to the most severe suppressions and massacres to quell the revolts.
However, the issue of concern lies in the events that occurred during this lecture and the reactions that later emerged in Pan-Iranian circles. At first glance, someone who was not present at the session and is simply reading the news article sent by Mrs. Sudabeh Roozbehan might question the authenticity of the report when one of the attendees refers to Pourpirar as a "Pan-Turkist," "Arab-lover," and an "agent of Israel." After all, while a humanitarian might have an equal love for Turks and Arabs, if a person is prejudiced to the point where they label someone as a "Pan-Turkist," the term "Arab-lover" no longer holds meaning. Furthermore, an "Arab-lover" being an agent of Israel would be hard to believe. But when reviewing the writings on various Pan-Iranian websites and blogs, there is no doubt about the accuracy of the report. In these writings, alongside the repeated promotion of Aryan-nationalist propaganda from the Pahlavi era, logical discourse is replaced with accusations and insults. In these circles, acknowledging the significance of Mr. Pourpirar's findings, and in a dizzying state of confusion over the destabilization of their racist theories, they give him labels that are inherently contradictory. If someone is simultaneously called a "Savak agent," "communist," "Islamic Republic interrogator," and "Pan-Turkist," such contradictions can only be understood as the delirious ramblings of a fevered mind.
This approach, however, cannot simply be attributed to emotional responses rooted in Iranian chauvinism. In fact, Pan-Iranianism, based on Aryan-nationalist beliefs, has become so deeply entrenched in the dominant discourse of political and literary movements that any idea that challenges the foundations of these racist ideologies is considered heretical. Since these Aryan-nationalist views inevitably lead to the oppression and marginalization of non-Persian ethnicities in Iran, it is natural that Mr. Pourpirar's historical findings, which undermine the ideological foundations of the grandeur of Aryanism, would present a serious challenge to the policy of ethnic suppression in Iran. The inevitable consequence of this disruption would be the recognition of the rights of all the ethnic groups and nations in Iran, fostering unity, mutual respect, and common struggle for political, economic, and civil rights. Therefore, it is not surprising that the official policies of both the Pahlavi regime and the Islamic Republic have consistently encouraged this trend of ethnic humiliation and suppression. Under the Pahlavi regime, and even in the Islamic Republic today, when Khatami considers the Persian language as a unifying force in Iran and Rafsanjani says, "The previous regime gave a lot of importance to the past of Iran and the Persian language due to certain biases; we should not see this as a negative thing," this does not mean they have become supporters of the alleged Aryan civilization. They know well that neither this civilization is something to be proud of, nor does anyone today care about the supposed historical achievements of nations, even if they were real, two thousand years ago. The issue must be viewed from the perspective of policies that deepen the divisions among the various ethnic groups in Iran.
Mr. Pourpirar, in his remarks, refers to the Purim event as a cover-up of history and cites evidence from the Torah. However, we do not consider religious texts as historical documents. That said, we have numerous instances of forgotten historical truths from even very recent times that make it easy to believe what he is saying. There is no need to look far; we can simply consider the political scene in Iran in December. While news outlets and political factions, both inside and outside the country, except for royalists, hold ceremonies and commemorate the martyrdom of three student activists by the agents of the Pahlavi regime, the massacre of the representatives of a nation during the military invasion of the Democratic Azerbaijan Republic by the same regime is ignored. It is as though this tragedy never happened. If three revolutionary students were martyred in the protests of December 7, 1953, the agents of the regime had also, seven years earlier, killed over 30,000 people in Azerbaijan—students, workers, peasants, and revolutionary activists—and displaced thousands. When the political scene in Iran today conveniently overlooks this incident, is there any doubt that a disaster like the Purim event, which occurred over two thousand years ago, might also have been intentionally erased from collective memory?
Of course, we have already made our stance clear regarding any and all kings, princes, and dynasties, regardless of their descent or ethnicity. Through our own experiences, and those of our forebears, we have learned to recognize the actions of all despots in history. Whether the Purim massacre took place or not, and whether the Achaemenids were involved, does not alter our beliefs. However, if these findings serve as a wake-up call for those from the current disillusioned and hopeless generation of Iran, who have taken refuge in the mirage of Aryan-nationalist nostalgia, then this would be a significant historical event.