The awakening of non-Persian peoples in Iran has compelled individuals who claim leadership or guidance to present themselves, out of necessity, as compassionate toward the people and to assert their presence. However, the issue with these individuals is that, due to their insincerity and their mindset still rooted in the dominant Persian-centered perspective, no matter how much they attempt to appear empathetic and caring, their statements ultimately come across as absurd and laughable.
One such person is Mr. Esmaeel Noori Ala, who has gathered a group under the banner of Iranian secularists and frequently issues opinions on various Iran-related topics.
In his recent article, titled "A Fake Concept Called Linguistic Federalism," Mr. Noori Ala addresses the issue of federalism and the languages other than Persian in Iran, offering opinions that, for anyone truly familiar with the real democratic struggles in Iran, are not only superficial, lacking substance, and deceptive in appearance, but in many cases, if we do not use the term "populist deception"—which has little meaning in this information age—are simply laughable and amusing.
From this angle, we can take a brief look at a few points in his article, noting that the essence of Mr. Noori Ala's views seems to be derived from the residues of the Pahlavi era, and although they have been heard a thousand times before, he attempts to present them in a democratic guise, which ultimately leads the reader to laugh at his ignorance, as he assumes the audience to be unaware.
Although, compared to the Pahlavi era, Mr. Noori Ala presents himself as more open-minded and claims to acknowledge the right of non-Persian-speaking people to education in their native languages, this right comes with the compulsory use of Persian as the common language of the Iranian people.
"The future Constituent Assembly must recognize the right of non-Persian-speaking peoples to education in their mother tongues and make it law, while also stipulating in the Constitution the teaching and use of Persian as the common language of the Iranian people."
In contrast to this apparent generosity, Mr. Noori Ala also has a demand for intellectuals and politicians whose native language is not Persian, clearly reminding them that:
"Now, showing emotional and impractical reactions to the past policies of forced language unity cannot and should not lead to further disastrous consequences that could jeopardize the existence of our country after the fall of the Islamic regime."
It seems that the work of Azerbaijani Manqurts in facilitating the policies of Reza Khan is much to Mr. Noori Ala’s liking, as he recommends continuing it. Even now, after eighty years, during which the policy of nation-building has caused countless tragedies for non-Persian peoples—tens of thousands of Turks, Kurds, and Arabs killed, the economy of non-Persian regions devastated, entire generations deprived of the right to education and normal life simply for being non-Persian, and displaced—Mr. Noori Ala still advises intellectuals and politicians whose native language is not Persian to facilitate the task of cutting off the heads of dissenters in a modern and democratic style, urging them to silence those who protest.
Mr. Noori Ala could essentially be considered one of the vanguard proponents of the contradictory "camel and ostrich" theory. There is a saying that if you tell an ostrich to fly, it will say it’s a camel, and if you tell it to carry a load, it will say it’s an ostrich. In the discussion of equal national rights in Iran, he tries to obscure the issue by claiming that the concept of "Persian ethnicity" does not exist externally, and whatever exists is Persian-speaking. Yet when the history of Persia and the Persian Gulf, the Persian kings, and the tomb of King Cyrus is brought up, his ancient grievances resurface, and the story changes. Interestingly, because this duality cannot be easily reconciled, his statements become filled with contradictions. These two conflicting phrases, which appear in the same paragraph, can be considered an example of such contradictions:
"In my view, the term "Persian nationality" is a fabricated and invented term, created for specific purposes. They want the situation to remain open for the eventual creation of "nation-states" in these regions, which contradicts the principle of maintaining the territorial integrity of a country, which the majority of Iranians, regardless of their ethnic or national origin, desire."
Now someone must come and solve the problem Mr. Noori Ala faces: How can Persian nationality not exist, but at the same time, the majority of Iranians have different ethnic-national roots?
Mr. Noori Ala likely knows that no one takes his words and slogans seriously, especially since under the banner of these very words, countless miseries have been inflicted upon non-Persian peoples. Perhaps this is why he swears an oath and says:
"In this regard, I must prevent any possible misunderstanding about myself. My functional priorities in the realm of "removing despotism" are as follows: I first think of the "human," and then their homeland. I do not claim that the unity of a homeland should be preserved at the cost of suppressing its people and stripping them of the right to self-governance and their well-being and peace."
After this claim, which is in contradiction with his belief in the inviolability of territorial integrity, Mr. Noori Ala explains how he thinks about the "human":
"That is, if I believed that the emergence of an independent Balochistan, Kurdistan, and Azerbaijan from Iran could lead to the happiness, well-being, and peace of the people of these regions, I would not support military campaigns from the center to these regions and the suppression of their people in the name of preserving Iran’s territorial integrity."
This argument cannot be hidden behind any cracks. The intellectual from the dominant ethnic group says that because he believes the creation of independent units outside of Iran would not lead to the happiness, well-being, and peace of these people, long live the military campaigns to these regions and the suppression of their people! Long live the spirit of classical European colonialists, who may be dead, but the Iranian intellectual who claims to first think of "humanity" and then their homeland is still alive and continuing their humanitarian line by supporting military campaigns to regions and suppressing their people to bring them well-being and peace.
Mr. Noori Ala does not merely claim to be a democrat; he does not only say that he first thinks of "humanity," but his fairness is not evident, as he states that non-Persian peoples, in addition to being forced to study and use Persian, must also have the right to educate in their language and have publications. Along with all this generosity, he also claims to be a federalist! One does not need to be exceptionally intelligent to guess the nature of the federalism he promotes without delving into details, but hearing its essence from him adds a new flavor.
"Although I am in favor of "federalism," I consider the idea of "linguistic federalism" a deadly poison, which a small group of intellectuals and politicians from different ethnicities in Iran stir into the people of their own nations, and, in their desire to create independent countries which they would manage, set their homeland on fire."
Mr. Noori Ala is a federalist, but he explicitly states that he does not support the type of federalism that intellectuals and politicians from various ethnic groups in Iran pour into the people of their own nations, but rather, he advocates for the type of federalism that intellectuals and politicians like himself—who believe that the well-being and peace of these people is to have the center send military campaigns and suppress them—should promote.
Now, what could federalism mean for someone who claims to think first of "humanity" and then their homeland, but considers Iran's territorial integrity sacred and, in its name, supports the suppression of peoples who disregard this principle?
He has another interesting statement on this matter, which surpasses all the ones above:
"In my view, and due to the international conditions prevailing in our region, the division of Iran would ultimately make each of the politically independent units more impoverished, crisis-ridden, and hopeless. Moreover, it would force them to rely on the support and administration of neighboring, culturally similar countries, thus turning their own people into second-class citizens in a larger political entity."
Mr. Noori Ala is a fascinating figure as one of the intellectuals trained during the Pahlavi era who now claims to be democratic. Not because, in the name of democracy, he believes that non-Persian people should be silenced, nor because his arguments are contradictory, nor because he is the husband of someone who wrote that Azerbaijani protests against the policy of drying up Lake Urmia were a government show to divert attention from the issue of the tomb of Cyrus, but for the very fact that this one opinion of his is enough to make him a figure worthy of study. This is an opinion based on the idea that if non-Persian peoples are in a larger political unit with their culturally similar neighbors, they will be second-class citizens, poorer, more crisis-ridden, and hopeless, but if they are under a policy that aims to separate them from their own culture and force them to adopt a foreign culture, their future will be better and they will not be in crisis!
Isn't someone with such brilliant ideas worth studying?
Original Text in Farsi