Yashar Gulshen - July 10, 2013
The Repentants
I have neither seen the Shah's prison nor the prison of the Islamic Republic, but I have heard so many memories from friends who experienced it, and read so many writings of prisoners from both regimes, that sometimes I confuse myself into thinking that I too was once tortured on the interrogation tables and buried alive in one of the terrifying cells of both regimes. But honestly, if I say that none of these memories or writings affected me as much as the writing of Nasim Khaksar, I am not exaggerating. I am referring to the short story in the collection Maraie is Blasphemous with the same title. If I say that every time I read this piece, I forget the present time and feel as though I am one of the people present in the hall of the Hosseiniyeh of Evin prison, I am not exaggerating. Perhaps the reason is that the story is not just a depiction of the physical torture of its narrator (which, as with other cases, also views its political organization with a kind of obsession), but at its core, it narrates the psychological breakdown of a human being and the breaking and unbreaking of that very sense that distinguishes humans from other living beings.
Nasim Khaksar begins Maraie is Blasphemous with this sentence: “Suddenly I felt I had become a dog. Not a dog in the sense of a rabid animal. No! On the contrary, a submissive and miserable animal.”
The main theme of this short story is the description of torture and whipping, accompanied by the breakdown of the human feeling of being a person. The reason why this feeling breaks down in some people, however, is not easy to explain, and I did not interpret this narrative as trying to explain it. In fact, Maraie is Blasphemous is more about the result of this breakdown and the state in which the feeling of being a dog overtakes the prisoner. "Right after five months of being arrested in Evin prison, under the hands of Haj Agha Lajvardi, I became a dog. Now I love Haj Agha Lajvardi so much that no one would believe it.”
In the first part of the story, Nasim Khaksar describes the whipping of the prisoners, explaining how “the natural state of being a human is taken away from them, and suddenly they feel like a dog, and ‘after I realized what I was, I no longer valued and respected being a human.’” The sensation of being under the whip is so vividly and precisely portrayed that the reader feels as if the lash is falling upon them as well. “Yes, I had spoken of the skin, I had said I thought the skin was to blame. But the skin itself was not the main cause. The main cause was the whip. I have never seen in any story about whipping such a real portrayal as I experienced. For the Shah's agents, the soles of the feet and the lower back of the prisoner were important. I had heard from a political prisoner during the Shah's time that a torturer named Rasooli had said that there is a connection between the nerves of the soles of the feet and a person's awareness... but ‘the agents of Khomeini do not believe in science. They see a metaphysical power in the whip. A power beyond human strength. For them, the whip is like a miracle. The entire body of the prisoner must feel it for the miracle to happen. That is, the person must transform from an impure, unclean being, destined for the fires of hell, into a pure, clean being worthy of paradise.’”
Through these descriptions, the author paints a painful image of the whip and his wounded feet, and in order not to let the image of his shattered feet dominate his thoughts, he says: “When I would think of resistance again, I would try not to look at my feet. Thinking of resistance would calm me for a moment. After all, I didn’t want to become a dog.”
Alongside the description of pain, torture, blood, and suffering, the most impactful scenes in this artistic narrative are the descriptions of the repentants' condition in the Hosseiniyeh of Evin. “The repentants are sitting shoulder to shoulder. ... Two repentants are sitting back to back on the back of Javadi, who does not want to become a repentant.”
Haj Agha shakes his head and says to the group:
“Who is ready to start?”
The voices of the repentants rise:
“Haj Agha, me!”
“I’m ready, Haj Agha!”
“Me. Me. Haj Agha!”
“Haj Agha, give him to me!”
...
“The floggers are lined up one after the other to deny Javadi the slightest opportunity. A nightmare unfolds before my eyes. I see starving dogs whose ribs are sticking out from under their skin, biting each other’s bones over their prey!”
The author begins to cry upon witnessing these scenes, and when “Haj Agha places his hand under my chin and lifts my head:
‘Are you crying?’
I just look at him.
Haj Agha asks, ‘Why are you crying, my son?’
Javadi, with tears in his throat, asks me, ‘Mohammad, why aren’t you crying for me?’
I say, ‘No! I’m crying for these people.’
Javadi says, ‘So am I.’
Haj Agha is taken aback: ‘What?’
It’s as if he has heard our words.
The voices of the repentants rise:
‘Haj Agha, he’s itching.’
‘Haj Agha, take him to his bed!’”
The image of the repentants in the story Maraie is Blasphemous is that of human beings whose spirits have been shattered, transforming into obedient creatures, trained dogs who, even more fiercely than their masters, tear into their former friends and ideologically-aligned individuals to avoid being tortured again. They become more vicious than their own masters in their eagerness to prove their loyalty to the regime, and they theorize against the very beliefs for which they once would have died. To quote Nasim Khaksar, “they transform from impure, unclean beings, destined for the fires of hell, into pure, clean beings worthy of entering paradise.”
A repentant is a valuable treasure for the ruling power. These guard dogs, who have tasted the whip, are now deployed on the front lines, either for a piece of bread or to avoid being whipped again. The most important of all is the special service they provide in breaking the spirit of their former comrades who remain loyal to their beliefs. What treasure could be more valuable than those who have turned from being lost, impure beings into the frontline guardians of the power? Of course, these dogs are not rabid animals. No! Rather, they are submissive and miserable creatures.
The Manqurts
In contemporary national literature of the Turks in Iran, the term "Manqurt" refers to those Turks who turn their backs on their own identity, their language, and everything they are, and become servants of a system whose goal is to distort the history of Azerbaijan and erase the Turkish language and culture in Iran. The term "Manqurt" originally comes from a legend that recounts the historical memories of the Kyrgyz Turks, but the events in Azerbaijan over the past hundred years strongly resemble the actions of the "Yuan Yuan" people in erasing the memories of their victims, with the current anti-Turk system in the region demonstrating this well, even though the fresh skin of a recently slaughtered camel has been replaced with modern propaganda tools and techniques.
The Manqurt legend is masterfully defined by the great Kyrgyz writer Chinghiz Aitmatov in his novel *Goodbye, April (translated as "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"). "Manqurt" means "shameful wolf" or "shameful human." This shame mostly affects the Bozkurt (the Gray Wolves) who have been captured by the enemy and are brainwashed to fight against their own origin, identity, and the community from which they emerged.
The legend itself deals with a period of history marked by tribal wars and struggles between the "Trelnayman" tribes and their enemies, the "Yuan Yuan" people. The story explains how the Yuan Yuan people would "Manqurtize" their captives. When they captured someone, they would take them to the desert, shave their heads completely, and then attach the tough skin of a freshly slaughtered camel to the captive's head, tightly binding it. Then, they would also bind the arms and legs of the captives and leave them in the scorching sun. After a while, as the hair of the captives grew, it could not find room to grow outward and eventually began to turn back, slowly burrowing into their brains. Most of the captives could not withstand this torment and died, but those who survived lost all their past memories, leaving only their physical skills, like archery. From then on, they were entirely under the control of their masters and would kill anyone their masters ordered them to.
The Manqurt legend, with this background, centers on the story of a young man who, after becoming a Manqurt, during a series of events, kills his own mother without any feeling of attachment or recognition towards her. In this legend, the mother symbolizes the sense of identity and belonging to the land, people, and community from which the person originates. On the other hand, the Yuan Yuan people are depicted as symbols of enemies to this sense of belonging, as masters who compel the transformed, cursed individuals to even kill their own mothers.
The Repentants and Manqurts
By examining the essence of the formation and function of Repentants and Manqurts, one can easily identify several common characteristics between these two, even though on the surface, one might appear as a real-life figure in our time and the other as a character from a legend of tribal wars. However, the key point in this comparison is to pay attention to the modern forms of the metaphors presented in the legend. The role of the skin of a freshly slaughtered camel in transforming human thoughts has now been taken over by various modern tools of propaganda and psychoanalysis. Instead of the hair growing inside the brain and erasing the memories of the past, the Iranian Manqurt-producing system implants poisonous Pan-Iranian thoughts and the manipulated history of the Turks in Iran into people's minds. Along with this, it portrays being Turkish as a form of humiliation. The result is a combination of the sense of alienation from one's roots among the victims and the self-effacing opportunism of the characterless individuals in front of the Pan-Iranian racist system.
The Manqurt of our time differs from the one in the legend in one respect. While the Manqurt of our time can be seen as a victim in terms of personal identity — especially when they try to show themselves as connected to the "superior Aryan race" — and like the Repentants, they seek to "transform from something impure, filthy, and deserving to burn in the fire of hell into something pure and lawful, deserving to enter heaven," they are distinct from the Manqurts of the legend. Since their decision to turn against their own nation and identity is made out of opportunism, despite having all the tools and knowledge at their disposal, they differ from the legendary Manqurts. Similarly, in comparing Repentants and Manqurts, although one could see the misery and brokenness caused by pressure and torture of the Repentants, and their confrontation with their former comrades and ideologies as similar to the plight of the cursed, transformed characters in the legend, the opportunism and betrayal of the Manqurts in our era must be evaluated on a level distinct from the Repentants and the legendary Manqurts.
To better understand the common characteristics and points of distinction between the two groups — Repentants and Manqurts — I must emphasize that Repentants should not be confused with those who, for whatever reason, abandon the struggle. This second group, known in political organizational literature as "the cut-off," was active during a period of political and militant life and, at a certain point, returned to their normal lives for some reason. Whatever the reason for their return — whether it was the pressure of torture and imprisonment, or a shift in their previous beliefs — it is a different and, in its own way, respectable matter. This distinction can also be applied to those who distance themselves from their Turkish identity. Many Turks — like people of all ethnic groups — may, for reasons such as family ties or the conditions of their place of residence, gradually distance themselves from their original identity and language and integrate into the identity and culture of the new place they live. While the term "Manqurt" is used in current Turkish literature for anyone who distances themselves from their Turkish identity, it must be emphasized that, in my opinion, this group of assimilated individuals should not be equated with the phenomenon of Manqurts. Essentially, just as Repentants, unlike the "cut-offs," engage in struggles against their former friends and comrades, Manqurts, unlike the assimilated, serve a system that, through distorting the history of Azerbaijan, denying the ethnic identity of the Turks, and promoting the fake language and ethnicity of the "Azeri" people, seeks to destroy the identity and existence of the people themselves. In other words, cut-offs are not necessarily Repentants, and assimilated individuals are not necessarily Manqurts.
With this explanation, we can better see the similarities and differences between these two phenomena around us.
Common Characteristics of Repentants and Mankurts
Both the repentants and the mankurts turn their backs on the group they came from. The repentants betray their previous friends ideologically, doctrinally, and organizationally, while the mankurts, by denying their inherent identity and their cultural and historical existence, oppose it.
Both the repentants and the mankurts, while separating themselves from their past, eagerly and submissively serve their former opponents and enemies, carrying out their commands and turning their swords against their own friends and compatriots. In fact, using Nasim Khaksar's interpretation, we could describe both groups as "dogs, not in the sense of vicious animals, but rather obedient and miserable creatures."
The repentants, by denying their own group, and the mankurts, by denying their nation, play a more significant role than non-repentants and non-mankurts in legitimizing the ruling power. When the invalidity of the ideas and actions of a political group is expressed by a member of the same group, or when the national identity of the Turks is denied by a Turk, it naturally has a far more destructive impact.
Both the repentants and the mankurts, because they originate from the very group they now oppose, have knowledge that, when twisted and altered, becomes an effective theoretical weapon for their new masters.
Both groups, the repentants and the mankurts, because they were never part of their new masters' inner circle, must prove their sincerity and loyalty. In comparison to non-repentants and non-mankurts, they must engage in more vigorous and relentless struggles against those they have betrayed.
Both groups, the repentants and the mankurts, feel a sense of shame in their subconscious about the roles they have taken on. However, since this shame contradicts their actions, to hide and suppress it, they must intensify their eagerness in servitude to their new masters.
Despite all these commonalities, the depravity of the mankurts is far greater, and their actions are more destructive.
Distinct Characteristics of Repentants and Mankurts
Repentants renounce their political, religious, or ideological group, deny it, and stand against their former allies, turning their swords upon them. In contrast, mankurts fight against their inherent identity, denying their very essence. They reject their identity, family, and the entire cultural and historical existence of their kin, considering them shameful. In other words, while repentants regret their past decisions and actions, and position themselves among their former enemies to atone, mankurts deny their very existence and their identity.
Repentants become repentant under the force of torture and punishment, but mankurts – except for a few ignorant groups – fight against their own identity for material gains, the opportunity for power, or to gain economic, political, or sports privileges. The issue of mankurthood cannot even be compared to the strength of will required to avoid becoming a repentant. Only those prisoners who endured the torture and horrors of the Shah's and the Islamic Republic's prisons and did not become repentants can claim it is possible to remain steadfast without becoming one. However, becoming a mankurt in the present time, especially for those who are not ignorant, is a voluntary decision born from opportunism, personal humiliation, and an understanding of the viciousness of the act.
While the result of the repentants' actions, in betraying their former allies, is catastrophic and may even contribute to the destabilization of other resistance groups, it is still confined to a political and military struggle between a ruling power and part of its opposition. On the other hand, the result of the mankurts' actions affects territorial and national areas, and their scope is wider, making their work more destructive.
Except for rare cases, repentants do not typically hold positions in the ruling power and generally live in infamy, isolation, and under suspicion from the very power that made them repentant. However, the current system of mankurt development has shown that mankurts can reach high government positions and have become a theoretical foundation for the very system that turned them into mankurts.
**Both the Pahlavi and Islamic regimes in Iran have been active in creating repentants and fostering mankurts, but as the Islamic Republic has set new records in repression and torture, it has also introduced innovations in the creation of repentants. They even use the term "Islamic repentant" for political defectors who serve the regime, adding a religious dimension to the issue and expanding the exploitation of repentants to new levels. However, the issue of exploiting mankurts is somewhat more complex. While the Islamic regime has made significant efforts in this area, the level of their exploitation has been gradually decreasing. In light of ongoing national movements in Azerbaijan and the growing awareness among young Turks in Iran, the role of mankurts has become less effective. The once-popular arguments of classic Azerbaijani mankurts have now become so absurd in the minds of Turks that they are rarely used, and when they are, they often provoke widespread backlash from the Turks. In this context, a new generation of mankurts is emerging, attempting to present a different facade but with the same poisoned ideology, pushing the same policies with a new rhetoric.
مرائی کافر است - نسیم خاکسار
مانقورت - چینگیز آیتماتوو
Original Text in Farsi