 |
| Discourse and discursive practices are forms of social and power practices that can either reinforce or challenge existing structures and hegemonic relations in society. |
An article titled "A Call to Commemorate International Mother Language Day" has been published on several Iranian websites, providing guidelines for recognizing and celebrating this day. At first glance, one might acknowledge that this call contains positive elements. Furthermore, its signatories include not only activists for ethnic rights but also figures from Persian-centered political circles. For perhaps the first time, these individuals have signed a document that includes points deemed taboo within Persian nationalist and centralist discourse.
The positive points mentioned in the call are as follows:
- Acknowledging the existence of “people with diverse nationalities and languages” in Iran, affirming that Iran is home to multiple nationalities with various languages, rather than a single nation.
- Emphasizing the need for “the recognition of national and cultural rights, including the right to education in the mother tongue, which has been ignored, threatened, and suppressed by security and repressive institutions since 1925.” This statement boldly points to the origins of the monolingual and mono-national system.
- Stressing the basic, natural, and human right of education in the mother tongue for the various nationalities and ethnic groups that make up Iran. While this does not explicitly advocate for non-Persian languages to be recognized as official languages, it nonetheless represents progress.
However, alongside these positives, there are several concerning points. Upon closer examination, these concerns not only neutralize the positives but, in totality, yield a negative outcome:
The first concern: What exactly do the drafters mean by “people with diverse nationalities and languages”? Who are these nationalities and languages? Why were they not explicitly named? Why speak ambiguously and not clearly state which languages should be recognized for education? This specificity is crucial because the authors of this call, while explicitly mentioning the Persian language (as “Parsi” instead of “Farsi”), thereby accepting the preferred terminology of Persian enthusiasts and archaic nationalist circles, have chosen to remain silent about other languages. Was this a calculated omission to avoid upsetting some signatories who refer to Turks as “Azeris” and their language as “Azeri”? Would it be unreasonable to expect the call to explicitly mention “Turkish” (Turki) alongside “Parsi” to dispel any suspicion that Azerbaijani national activists might be compromising for the sake of appeasing their new allies?
The second concern: The call states, “Any initiative or action that compels the Islamic Republic regime to reconsider its culture-hostile policies and remove obstacles to recognizing the right to education in the languages of non-Persian nationalities and ethnicities in Iran can be beneficial.” This phrasing gives the impression that only the Islamic Republic’s policies obstruct the recognition of this right. This impression is further reinforced in the call's opening, where it appeals to “Persian-language media” to take action. By framing the issue this way, the responsibility for the cultural suppression is entirely placed on the Islamic Republic, while Persian-language media—which surpass the regime in their cultural hostility—are portrayed as innocent and supportive of the people's demands. Additionally, the explicit alliance between the Islamic Republic and the Persian-centered opposition in denying the rights of non-Persian peoples is entirely overlooked.
The third and most concerning issue: A specific sentiment emerges in the second section of the call, where “compatriots deprived of the ability to read and write in their mother tongue” are invited to appear at government offices “in their national and local attire.” This raises concerns that the drafters might view these “compatriots deprived of the ability to read and write in their mother tongue” as merely a folkloric group dressed in floral-patterned clothing, performing traditional dances—whether at official state ceremonies or Los Angeles-based gatherings—to complete the performative recognition of their rights. Reading this call brings to mind a segment from a television program, Ofogh, aired a few years ago. During discussions on mother tongues, the program repeatedly showed clips of impoverished communities from southern Tehran, villages, and nomadic tribes, indirectly suggesting that the issue of mother tongues concerns only non-urban, marginalized populations. The implicit message was clear: do not associate this issue with individuals wearing modern clothing, driving cars, and living in affluent homes.
It would be a fair recommendation for respectable individuals who sign such calls to be mindful of the implications. They should refrain from compromising on fundamental principles simply to secure the signature of a well-known figure from the Persian-centered opposition—figures who, in their meetings with monarchist and pan-Iranianist allies, oppose the very rights they endorse in such documents. Furthermore, these calls should not inadvertently misrepresent the current realities of Iran, particularly the sociopolitical landscape of Azerbaijan, whether directly or indirectly.
A Call to Commemorate International Mother Language Day
Original Text in Farsi