By Eyvaz Taha - January 29, 2014
 |
| Eyvaz Taha |
An open letter to Iranian intellectuals, thinkers, and politicians regarding the recent position of some members of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature
Some members of the Academy of the Persian Language have recently made astonishing remarks, opposing the Rouhani administration’s efforts to teach mother tongues and to establish an Academy for the Azerbaijani Turkish Language. These are scholars who, by virtue of their duty to seek truth, are expected to speak with scientific and logical precision. Yet, they have taken the path of politicians—those who neither care about reality nor feel committed to the truth.
These scholars have made statements that are incompatible with human rights principles, morally indefensible, and even inconsistent with religious teachings. Moreover, their remarks appear particularly unjustified as they are laced with conspiracy theory thinking.
Every language has a right to exist. No human being should be deprived—under any pretext—of learning their mother tongue or receiving education in it. No language, morally speaking, has the right to thrive at the expense of another language’s death in a field stripped of competition. Still, we do not wish to dwell on these obvious points. Nor do we want to cite the constitution or international covenants that recognize this right, because we know that the problem with individuals like Haddad-Adel is not ignorance of such basics, but a commitment to a strategy of power that erupts in the form of "intolerance through denial of the other."
In an age where the rights of the "other" are recognized and human dignity is measured by the freedoms of language, expression, and belief, the statements made by these gentlemen show that regressive trends like Ahmadinejadism were not accidents. These movements are either the products or reproductions of the same totalitarian and essentialist thinking of certain figures within Iranian academia.
The essentialist notion of "Iranshahri" (a mythic, unitary concept of Iran) that inevitably leads to ideas of a pure race and single language—like all forms of totalitarianism—renders politics impossible. A society, in practice, becomes impossible unless it breathes through its fissures and derives its coherence from its inner diversity and contradictions. Politics comes into being within these cracks; it is the act of breaking down the totality that constantly seeks to swallow the singular.
However, in our case, society becomes possible only through depoliticization and blocking the breathing spaces of the "other." In other words, at a time when the walls of totalities are crumbling across the globe, individuals who claim to be intellectuals are dancing in defense of the most decayed, ninety-year-old policies of homogenization—blind to the fact that, through trivial tools like Facebook, thousands of cracks have now emerged in the very structure of traditional nation-state ideology. Cracks that no Ahmadinejad-style bluff, and no Haddad-style poetry, can conceal.
We might have interpreted these gentlemen’s comments as mere concern for their own mother tongue, had they not clung to the rotten rope of conspiracy theory to justify themselves. A few scholars from the Academy, rather than articulating scientific, ethical, or religious arguments against the right to mother-tongue education, have taken on the role of conspiracy theorists. They seem unaware that those who invoke conspiracy theories are often the real conspirators.
It is no secret that, since the time of Reza Shah, under the guidance of the British, a massive conspiracy has been underway to eradicate various languages in favor of one dominant tongue. This conspiracy continues today in various forms—through planning and policymaking within institutions large and small, from the linguistics department at Allameh Tabatabai University to the Academy of the Persian Language.
Defending a person’s identity and language is not a conspiracy. On the contrary, conspiring to perpetuate an unjust linguistic status quo is the conspiracy.
Mr. Fathollah Mojtaba’i, by calling the defense of identity a "foreign import," points his finger northward, suggesting that Azerbaijanis lack the awareness and foresight to realize that their language is being erased—and that it is others who must warn them of the impending danger. That is the very essence of conspiracy thinking: denying the agency of the people affected and attributing everything to the machinations of external actors. This is the same principle that, as Jamal al-Din al-Afghani once said, has been used by despots to justify internal tyranny with the threat of foreign colonialism.
The conspiracy theorist, precisely when acting as the mouthpiece of power, parroting the headlines of homogenizing politics, is the one engaged in conspiracy—not the people, many of whom, for opposing linguistic and cultural oppression, have been exiled, impoverished, or imprisoned.
In other words, the greatest conspiracy against a people is the occupation of key cultural institutions—like the Academy—by individuals through cronyism and favoritism. If these speakers had come to their positions through democratic processes, we might have remained silent or accepted the burden of responding in a scholarly fashion. But Mr. Haddad-Adel did not earn his status through open competition, scholarly merit, or literary talent—but through his connection to concentrated sources of power. Even if he has "won" any positions, it has been with the help of the performance-enhancing drug known as the "Guardian Council’s vetting."
In a democratic competition, how far down the list would men like Mr. Haddad-Adel and Mr. Salim Neisari—who now speak boldly and without concern for public opinion—really rank?
We have no infatuation with nationalism, no loyalty to outdated racial ideologies, and no opposition to the Persian language. If we were, we surely would have missed the sweetness of Rumi or the remarkable insight of Shamloo. The issue is that, because of the monopolists’ war on one of humanity’s most cherished legacies—language—my people are facing a deep identity crisis that is destroying their ability to think.
Dear Professors,
It is commendable that, today, the rights of certain minorities—such as religious and ideological dissidents—are increasingly being acknowledged. But we must not forget that supporting the rights of the many who seek the revival of their mother tongues as a core element of their identity is no less important.
Therefore, we expect you to support the simple and obvious human right to teach mother tongues in schools and to establish institutions to preserve and develop those languages.
Our concern is not baseless. The fragile light of rationality that has emerged in some areas through the people's votes may be extinguished under the sweeping assault of monopolists—those very people who, by backing the bearer of a “halo of light,” have driven literature, media, politics, and the economy into ruin.
Eyvaz Taha
Tehran
January 29, 2014
About the author: Eyvaz Taha is a graduate of the University of Tehran and former editor-in-chief of Yol and Jahan magazines and the Yarpagh weekly newspaper, all published in the Turkish (Azerbaijan) language.