Younes Shameli - September, 2006
 |
| The following text is based on a speech delivered by Younes Shameli at a seminar in Stockholm marking the first day of Mehr (September 23), the opening day of schools in Iran. |
The first day of Mehr—the day schools open—is approaching. Unfortunately, Iran’s educational system remains outdated, unrealistic, and harmful. It was founded upon an extreme form of Persian nationalism and continues to operate on that basis today.
This is despite the fact that at least 60 percent of children in Iran do not begin school in their mother language. Indeed, the disregard for these children’s mother languages continues throughout their lives.
The reality is that non-Persian children, who constitute the majority, experience distress from their first day of school because they cannot understand the language of instruction. When children begin learning in an unfamiliar language, they may become embarrassed even to express what they already know because they do not know that language. This sense of embarrassment may become an enduring personal characteristic that remains with them into old age.
Moreover, when non-Persian children begin school without any familiarity with Persian—a language not spoken in their families, neighborhoods, extended families, or cities—they do not perceive themselves as equal in worth or ability to Persian-speaking children. From the first days, and even the first years, of school, such children cannot feel that they are able to compete with Persian-speaking children. Persian-speaking pupils begin their education in their mother language, whereas Turkish children begin their schooling not in their own mother language but in an unfamiliar language—Persian.
This is an unequal beginning. With such an unequal start, how can these children compete with their Persian-speaking peers? Under these conditions, non-Persian children may feel defeated before they have even entered the competition. These are, in brief, the realities of the inhumane and uncivilized educational conditions imposed upon Turkish children in their own homeland and against their will.
But where does this inhumane and uncivilized policy—the idea of receiving an education not in one’s mother language but in an unfamiliar language—originate?
Consider the following words of Mahmoud Afshar, a well-known pan-Persianist:
If the people of Azerbaijan can easily read Turkish-language periodicals and newspapers or write in Turkish, what need will they have for Persian?
He continues:
I want the learning of Persian to be made compulsory, free, and universal, and for the necessary means to be provided. I know without doubt that we shall achieve our objective without difficulty, without creating problems, without encountering opposition, and without Azerbaijanis even realizing what is happening. After fifty years, Azerbaijanis will speak Persian with ease. There are only two possibilities: either an Azerbaijani is Iranian or is not; if he is Iranian, he cannot be Turkish. Azerbaijanis themselves must take the lead in spreading their national language—that is, Persian—so that Turkish, which is a foreign language, will gradually disappear.
—Mahmoud Afshar, “The Unity of Iranians and the Persian Language,” Ayandeh
The meaning is clear: the expansion and spread of Persian require the death of Turkish. Turkish must be classified as a foreign language; Azerbaijanis must be turned against one another; and Turks must be brought into conflict with other Turks.
Why? So that Persian may develop further and spread among the non-Persian nations, while Turkish is gradually driven from public life and disappears.
But what justification is offered for this policy—that is, for dissolving non-Persian languages into Persian? When asked, they answer: “The unity of Iran!” Persian ultranationalists, together with collaborators from other nations who joined them, advanced this argument and transformed it into state policy under both Pahlavi monarchs. The Islamic Republic subsequently became the faithful successor to that policy.
According to Persian politicians in Iran, if a country has several official languages, it cannot maintain its unity. From Persian ultranationalists to leftist thinkers belonging to that nation, they have all placed their stamp of approval on this idea. To the greatest extent possible, they have persuaded the nations living in Iran—including the Persian nation itself—that this is the only possible arrangement and that Iran would otherwise disintegrate.
Any reasonably informed person knows that this claim is utterly false, and Persian politicians themselves are fully aware of its falsity. With only a few exceptions, the countries of the world are multilingual. Moreover, 61 percent of the world’s countries are governed through federal political systems.
In recent years, Persian ultranationalist politicians in Iran have become increasingly alarmed. Their anxiety arises from the growing awareness of the nations living in Iran over the past twenty years and, particularly, from the transformation of the demands of the Azerbaijani people and Turkish nation into civil disobedience in recent years.
In the remarks quoted above, Mahmoud Afshar considered fifty years sufficient for the eradication of the Turkish language. Yet eighty years have now passed under the dominance of that ideology, and Iran’s political system today confronts a major and unavoidable question: the right of the nations living in Iran to coexist with equal rights.
The emergence of this question as an urgent contemporary issue demonstrates that, although the policy of assimilation has achieved some successes for the Persian apartheid system over the past eighty years—and many non-Persian people have consequently become Persianized—the project as a whole now faces failure.
The Babak Castle Congress and the magnificent uprising of May this year amplified the voices of Turks and Azerbaijanis both within Iran and throughout the international community. It is now increasingly clear that Iran’s political and civil problems cannot be resolved unless Azerbaijan is recognized as an independent political force.
Assimilation or Pluralism
But by what means should this problem be resolved?
There are two possible approaches to addressing the civil and cultural question in a multinational and multilingual Iran:
The first is the policy of “one country, one language”—assimilating all other languages in an attempt to achieve national unity.
The second is to recognize pluralism in its entirety and build unity through diversity.
The first approach was tested over the past eighty years. Its consequences were the destruction of non-Persian civilizations and cultures, the granting of privileged status to a minority within the country, and, on that basis, the subjection of the majority to humiliation and degrading treatment.
The experience of this first approach produced division and estrangement among the nations living in Iran, intensified tensions in the national regions, broadened national-democratic struggles, and, more generally, drove Iranian society toward political conflict.
This tested method has resulted in the suppression of human and civil rights, the obstruction of democratic demands, and, fundamentally, the prevention of society’s development.
The second approach is pluralism, which has secured an important place in the modern countries of the world. If pluralism is fully recognized, the objective in Iran will no longer be to destroy its diverse cultures but to foster their development.
Under this model, people will not be humiliated or demeaned because of the language they speak or the religion to which they belong. Instead, they will receive respect and acceptance from society. Citizens who feel respected and valued will see no need to rebel.
If pluralism is recognized in multilingual Iran, democratic, human, and civil rights will no longer be obstructed. The democratic process will enable the country to progress and advance further.
The consequences of imposing a monolingual civil system upon a multilingual and multinational Iran are now evident. Indeed, the results of this experience make the legitimacy and necessity of pluralism even clearer.
The Question of a Common Language
When discussing pluralism, however, one serious question must be answered: How should the question of a common language be resolved in Iran? In my view, we must find a realistic and rational solution suited to contemporary conditions.
In multinational and multilingual countries, the language question cannot be resolved merely by formally recognizing linguistic rights. Once the linguistic rights of a particular language community or nationality are recognized, that community will seek to organize itself as a political force. Through this political power, and within established legal frameworks, it can formulate policies concerning the economy, social affairs, culture, and language at the level of a provincial government, thereby organizing society toward development.
Regarding language, it is evident to anyone who thinks realistically that education in one’s mother language is a matter of the highest importance. For every child, the mother language is the mother of all languages. It provides the foundation upon which other languages can be learned. Accordingly, all children—including Turkish children—must first receive an education in their own mother language. Contemporary scientific knowledge clearly demonstrates this fact, and International Mother Language Day was established to emphasize the importance of the mother language.
All schools should therefore be organized around the mother language of each nation. Another reality is that the languages spoken in Iran—Turkish, Persian, Kurdish, Baluchi, and Arabic—are recognized languages both in the regions where their speakers live and internationally.
It must also be noted that these languages serve as the foundations of government at the provincial level—as in Pakistan’s Balochistan and Iraqi Kurdistan—or at the level of independent states, such as the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Arab countries, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. Nevertheless, both the Iranian government and forces within its opposition attempt to portray non-Persian languages as languages of inferior status.
Today, the question of a common language has been addressed through different models. These different models naturally arise from different historical and social conditions. Three widely recognized approaches may be identified. Drawing inspiration from them, it is possible to select an approach appropriate to Iran’s circumstances.
1. The Swiss Model
Switzerland has no single language designated as the common language. It has four official languages. There is no formal hierarchy or discrimination among them, and everyone is expected to learn one or two additional languages alongside their own. Each child must therefore learn two or three languages, although the choice of languages is voluntary.
It is evident that citizens’ employment opportunities depend upon their qualifications. A Swiss citizen who knows two or three languages possesses an advantage in the labour market over someone who knows only one. This competition encourages families and children to learn two or three languages. Switzerland is organized as a confederation.
2. The Indian and Pakistani Model
In these countries, education in the mother language is also one of the foundations of the educational system. However, because English has deep historical roots there, it has become a common language.
India has advanced further in this area because of the development of its democratic institutions. Pakistan, by contrast, has attempted to address the language question through a less effective educational system operating within a nondemocratic political structure.
Both countries are organized on federal principles. India follows a democratic course, whereas Pakistan remains on a nondemocratic trajectory.
3. The Afghan and Iraqi Model
Afghanistan and Iraq represent more recently adopted approaches to resolving multilingualism.
In Afghanistan, all languages were officially recognized, although they were assigned different statuses. Because Pashto and Dari were each spoken by more than 30 percent of the population, both were recognized as official languages throughout the country. Uzbek Turkish, spoken by approximately 10 percent of the population, received official status at the local level.
Conditions in Iraq were different. Arabic, spoken by nearly 80 percent of the population, and Kurdish, spoken by approximately 16 percent, received countrywide official status. Because Turkmens constituted a smaller proportion of the population and lacked a strong political position, their language received official recognition only at the local level.
How Should Iran’s Language Question Be Resolved?
An Iranian Model
The principles outlined above must also be given a prominent place in Iran. Everyone living in the country—especially children—must first receive an education in their mother language, from the first year of school to the highest level and from primary school through university. Accordingly, all languages spoken in Iran must receive official status.
The realities of Iran suggest that its educational system should combine elements of the second and third models described above. In particular, to ensure that Iran does not remain isolated from global scientific developments, advances, and experiences—and because English now serves as a global lingua franca and is essential for young citizens who travel abroad for education or employment—the Iranian educational system should give priority to English after the mother language.
At the same time, if the Iraqi and Afghan models were adapted to Iran, two languages—Turkish and Persian—or perhaps three languages—Turkish, Persian, and Kurdish—could become official state languages throughout the country. Baluchi, Arabic, and other languages might receive official status at the local level.
Ultimately, the educational system must respect every child’s mother language, enable its development, and open new horizons for the country’s progress. The present system obstructs all these objectives. For this reason, fundamental change in Iran is the hope and demand of every democrat.
Striving for a democratic and prosperous future will illuminate the path of children and enable them to live as dignified and fulfilled human beings.