Yashar Gulshen - March 19, 2013
I read the second statement from Akhbar-e-Rooz titled In Defense of National Solidarity in Iran!. I didn't find it necessary to repeat the points I had already made, which also responded to some aspects of this statement. Instead, to add variety and highlight the absurdity of its contents, I will present my thoughts in the form of commentary as a commentator and an assistant to the writer of Akhbar-e-Rooz.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
A warning from Akhbar-e-Rooz regarding attempts to create division and set the people of Iran against each other was met with reactions from several intellectuals of different nationalities living in Iran. Unfortunately, many of these reactions were an unconditional defense of any kind of extremist policies carried out in the name of defending national rights in Iran.
Explanation: In response to those who may ask, "What kind of extremist policies are being referred to here?", I must add that it refers to policies that are extreme.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
Akhbar-e-Rooz acknowledges the existence of "national oppression" in Iran. Akhbar-e-Rooz is committed to fighting this oppression as a shameful form of discrimination in our time and in our country. In this oppression, not only governments are involved but also the chauvinistic and nationalist movements in Iran—who do not necessarily speak Persian—are complicit.
Explanation: Just to clarify, these movements are not, for example, the National Front, whose statements are frequently published by Akhbar-e-Rooz. They have no association with terms like "chauvinist" and "nationalist" in the Iranian context.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
What we consider inappropriate are the extremist tendencies of ethnic nationalism and chauvinism in the country.
Explanation: As for what these extremist tendencies of ethnic nationalism and chauvinism are, this has already been explained in the first section above.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
The concepts of a "pure nation" and an "impure nation" do not have any real existence.
Explanation: It is important to note that we are not talking about the "pure Aryan nation" of Iran or any divine concept of purity. In this paragraph, we are only referring to the peripheral ethnic groups that call themselves "Turk", "Kurd", and "Arab". If anyone has never heard of them calling themselves a "pure nation," they should assume they do in their minds.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
We do not call for supporters of the removal of national oppression in Iran to abandon their demands, but we do call for distancing themselves from ethnic chauvinism and extreme nationalism.
Explanation: It should be noted that each person must discover these ethnic chauvinistic and extreme nationalist ideas in their own way. We should not expect Akhbar-e-Rooz to spoon-feed everything to the reader.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
There are infiltrators working to serve the objectives of regional and international powers, raising the flag of nationalism or anti-nationalism.
Explanation: A point worth mentioning is that when we raise the flag against nationalism, especially the kind of nationalism of peripheral ethnic groups, it is different from those who raise their flags against Iranian nationalism and the Iranian nation. The infiltrators are the ones doing that, not us. Another key difference is that they are not raising anti-national flags against non-Iranian nationalism to avoid being labeled foreign agents.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
The people of Iran should decide the future of their country. They must express how they want the future of their country to look.
Explanation: This is an additional explanation, but it is worth mentioning that when we refer to the people of Iran, we mean all the people of Iran, who should have a say in whether the ethnic groups determine their own destiny. Can it be said without consulting the people, just like it is said that women should have the right to divorce?
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
Narrow-mindedness and pressure to force others to abandon their beliefs should be set aside. There is no need for Akhbar-e-Rooz to shape its thoughts and ideas according to the views of intellectuals affiliated with this or that nation or language, nor does it need to think in exactly the same way and reach the same conclusions as them. No one should be condemned for opposing the idea that all nationalities should have equal rights and the same rights.
Explanation: Some of these extremists, who should be considered agents of the Islamic Republic, believe that everyone must think like them. For example, if their interpretation is that equal rights means making their mother tongue official or prioritizing their region's water, there is no need for us to think the same way. In fact, these ideas show how extreme they are.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
We do not accept the claim that "Persians" do not share common interests with the "ethnicities living in Iran" in their struggle to eliminate national oppression and discrimination, or that they are not supportive of this struggle, and that every Kurd, Arab, or Turk is necessarily a supporter of it.
Explanation: This is similar to the employer and employee. Don't both parties benefit from the employee working more hours? Some extremists claim that workers shouldn't work more than eight hours a day. This is nonsense. Both the employer and the worker benefit from the worker working twelve hours a day so that the worker earns more and the employer achieves their goals. Many workers may not accept this argument, but does every worker support class struggle? The issue between Persians and peripheral ethnic groups has another dimension. If a Turkish or Kurdish worker goes to central regions to work, they will get paid, and they will no longer be in a peripheral situation; they will become like a Persian and won’t have a reason to say why wealth is concentrated in Persian areas or why a capitalist insists that a factory be built in Semnan instead of Maragheh. These kinds of arguments remind us of sophistry. As they say, "It doesn't matter? Well, go to Semnan, what difference does it make?" This is not national oppression, and thinking that there is no common interest in solving it is about sustainable and comprehensive development requirements.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
The attempt to exclude "Persians" from the struggle against national discrimination, and to divide this struggle into "Persian" and "non-Persian," is a mistaken and dangerous view. It arises from an attempt to define "nations" by collective characteristics and ignores the internal differences within these nations. This is the core of racism.
Explanation: We should also add that our problem with these peripheral ethnic extremists is their lack of understanding. We have to explain everything a hundred times before they grasp it. Don't foolishly ask, "If this is the case, then what about the concept of the Iranian nation?" They don't understand the difference between the Iranian nation and the peripheral ethnic groups. When we talk about the Iranian nation, it is different. The Iranian nation has common characteristics, such as a shared language, common interests, especially between the center and the peripheral regions, a shared religion, and many other things. But do the people of Kurdistan share anything in common among themselves? If you think otherwise, it shows that you're quite backward, and the core of racism has developed within you. Do you understand now?
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
Mother tongue education, as one of the most prominent national demands, is supported by a large segment of the Persian-speaking society in Iran.
Explanation: We haven't emphasized this issue, but those with sense understand that we are referring to education in the Persian language as a mother tongue.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
Some are strongly opposed to it.
Explanation: Of course, these are a small minority. Don't immediately jump up and down like possessed people, saying, "Didn't we say that we are one of the few media outlets pursuing this issue?" No, we made that statement for a different purpose, and we make this statement for another reason. Every statement has its place, and every point has its position.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
Democrats and leftists in Persian-speaking society have an interest in this struggle and in eliminating other forms of discrimination, because it weakens the foundation of oppression against humans and brings the country closer to democracy and humanity. Freedom-loving people want to eliminate oppression, no matter where it occurs or under what guise.
Explanation: We have another benefit in this, and that is that if we don't raise these slogans, we can't dismiss all the absurdities and extremist views of the peripheral ethnic groups. We've already defined extremism above.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
During the recent earthquake in Azerbaijan, people from all over Iran rushed to help their Azerbaijani compatriots, and this was a conscious reaction to the pressures currently faced by Azerbaijan.
Explanation: These Azerbaijanis really became ungrateful. Some of these people from the Iranian nation were so dedicated to helping the earthquake victims that when they went there to enlighten the thoughts and help raise the national awareness of the children affected by the earthquake, they handed them selections from the Shahnameh, which is a sacred document for our united nation, so that they could enjoy the epic tales of the Iranian-Turanian war and find some comfort. How ungrateful!
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
Those who, at every opportunity, want to exclude Persians from this struggle – which is part of the anti-discrimination struggle – are those who, even if they don't explicitly say so, believe that Persians benefit from discriminating against other nationalities in Iran.
Explanation: These biased individuals don't understand that the reason water from Khuzestan goes to Yazd is to prevent Khuzestan from being flooded, and Yazdis don't benefit from this. Similarly, when Khuzestan's oil money is used in Esfahan for factory construction, the purpose is to avoid further pollution of Khuzestan's air due to factory emissions. And these Arabs should not work unnecessarily and should instead relax in the heat of Khuzestan with the subsidy money. This would be more enjoyable for them. If a Turkish worker comes to Esfahan to work, it’s because they want to enjoy the beauty of the city and earn money to send back to their family. Now, if someone asks why factories are mostly built in Persian regions, potentially polluting the air of Persianland, they should be reminded that this excessive complaining is an example of extremism and racism – but of the self-identified kind!
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
They are the ones who judge people based on their language. This is racist judgment.
Explanation: It’s very important that we don’t judge people based on their language. If someone – whether they are Turkish or Kurdish – comes to study in sweet Persian and speaks to us in this language, why should we judge them based on their language? Of course, it is different if someone speaks a language that no one understands, has not learned Persian well, and has a thick accent. In that case, if someone calls them unintelligent (I mean, they understand what I’m saying!), it's not because of their language but because of their inherent lack of intelligence. What is meant here by racist judgment is different. Racist judgment is something else and differs somewhat from Islamic judgment. We do believe in national oppression in Iran, but it has nothing to do with language or nationality. It means that national oppression exists in Iran on a general and collective level. Nationality here means collective and public, and the only nation we talk about is the Iranian nation.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
Separating the national issue from democracy and the struggle against discrimination and for justice is a reactionary act. In dozens of other issues, including the struggle against tyranny, the establishment of democracy in the country, securing bread for Persian, Turkish, Arab, and Kurdish workers, and defending peace, the people of Iran, from all languages and all nationalities, have common interests. They stand together and fight together. No one can claim that any of these demands is more important or more urgent than the others for the workers, the oppressed, and the masses of Iran who are being crushed under the pressure of this government.
Explanation: Here, we are being somewhat modest. We know what is more important, but we have said this ambiguously to add a dramatic tone to this paragraph. In fact, we ourselves know that a Turkish worker doesn’t care if his lake dries up and he has to go to Esfahan, Semnan, or Arak for work. But for him, the most important thing is that Iran’s territorial integrity remains intact. Even someone with little intelligence understands that if Iran’s territorial integrity is damaged, after the drying up of Lake Urmia, how would the Turkish worker be able to travel to Persian regions? If territorial integrity is lost, nothing else matters.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
The continuous effort to create a divide between Persians and non-Persians is a deadly poison that some are injecting into our society. They want to claim that there are no, or very weak, common interests among the people in this country, or that the common interests are insignificant. The greatest benefit of this policy goes into the pockets of the Islamic regime of Iran, and the primary damage falls on the workers and the oppressed, who, regardless of the language they speak, have empty tables today. Do these "Persian haters" even care about the empty tables of workers?
Explanation: This is actually a diversionary question because these Persian-haters don’t even have a word for "grief" in their Yajooj and Majooj language, let alone concern for the empty tables of workers. The aim here is to equate Persian-haters with the empty tables of workers. The term "Persian-haters" is very important and should be emphasized. Again, if anyone wants specific examples, they can refer to the explanations provided above about ethnic extremism. It’s a bit intrusive to ask where this Persian hatred is coming from. Well, here you go! When they make statements like abolishing the official status of the Persian language or about Southern Azerbaijan, it means they are against Persians. The very term "Southern" after Azerbaijan implies separatism, opposition to Persians, and servitude to the Islamic regime, Aliyev, Erdogan, and even Bush, and more importantly, it shows that they are indifferent to the empty tables of workers. This is no small matter. If we don’t raise the issue of Persian hatred, these extremists will brazenly accuse us of "Turk-hatred." But everyone knows that such labels don’t stick to us.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
Those who say that anyone who believes in "the Iranian nation" as a historical phenomenon is therefore a defender of national oppression and not in favor of the rights of the nationalities in Iran are those who want to limit the boundaries of the struggle and turn it into a battle between Persians and non-Persians.
Explanation: We wanted to say more, but we realized it might give ammunition to the hypocrites, so we refrained. For example, anyone who doesn’t believe in the Charter of Human Rights of Cyrus the Great as a historical phenomenon is entirely against human rights, and so on. These are the troublemakers who refer to Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union as examples, saying they were once historical but became modern. However, we should tell them not to try to make us cry, because our hats will be on the same line.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
The struggle against discrimination and national oppression will be more successful when more people join it.
Explanation: If you want a witness for this, here’s one: A sheikh enjoying honey and saying it's sweet.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
The central issue in the "national issue" from our perspective is based on agreement. If there is no agreement, the gun and war will speak.
Explanation: It should also be clarified that by "agreement" we mean the agreement of these peripheral nations with our views and the abandonment of their opposition to the concept of the Iranian nation. Because if there is no agreement, the gun and war will speak, and that will not be good for them.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
Some even consider discussing "territorial integrity" to be forbidden, and others are enraged when it is said that the future destiny of Iran must be determined with the agreement of all its parts in a democratic situation.
Explanation: On the contrary, we believe that the issue of territorial integrity must be discussed, and those who are language racists and engage in extremism by questioning the historical phenomenon of the Iranian nation should be crushed. To understand the concept of agreement between all parts, we have previously explained the right to divorce for women and defined extremism multiple times.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
The logic of both groups ultimately resorts to weapons. It resorts to civil war. Why is it falsely claimed that the inhabitants of a country cannot democratically and humanely decide the future of their country? If the solution isn’t this, what will it be?
Explanation: It must be clearly explained that deciding democratically and humanely about the country’s future means agreeing on these ethnic issues. It doesn't make sense for some extremists to think that the land and the nation have become so ownerless that they can independently make decisions about their own regions. Emphasis should be placed on the term "joint ownership" here. Although the term "joint ownership" has been used a lot by monarchists and the National Front, stressing it—just like the term "Iranian nation"—silences everyone. This is not like the situation of men and women, where, if the term is used, feminist voices would rise up and ask how women are the joint property of men to seek their opinions on their own rights. Anyone who dares to question the joint ownership of Iran should again emphasize the shared interests of all the Iranian people and condemn Persian-phobia.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
Akhbar-e-Rooz is against national oppression and simultaneously warns against the thoughts of those who want to entrust the fate of national discrimination in our country to foreign powers, weapons, and the Islamic Republic's tanks.
Explanation: With this statement, some might start a debate and argue that foreign powers and the Islamic Republic have been bombarding democracy fighters with tanks, so why discriminate? Let them also spend some resources on the issue of national discrimination. These people know this but pretend not to, and they make a distinction that fighting for democracy is different from eliminating national oppression. Fighting against national oppression is like a hundred-year-old wine – it grabs you and never lets go, while the fight for democracy is like non-alcoholic wine. No matter how much we drink, it still doesn’t affect us, but look at what happened in the year when these nationalist ideas, which ruined Azerbaijan and Kurdistan in Iran, were in power.
Akhbar-e-Rooz:
Akhbar-e-Rooz expects the well-known national-ethnic parties in the country, such as the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran, Komala, PJAK, and local and civil organizations supporting national rights that work in ethnic regions, to end their silence regarding the rise of extremist tendencies.
Explanation: This request is very important, especially since we mention the Kurdish parties here. We don’t care that these were our previous friends and allies with whom we regularly issued joint statements. But as a famous proverb says, "I am telling you my daughter, but I mean you, my daughter-in-law." My expectation is that these Kurdish parties join us so that we can reduce the boldness of the Arabs and Turks, who have become quite arrogant recently.