 |
| Seyid Jafar Pishevari with members and leaders of the Azerbaijan Democratic Party, 1945 |
Azerbaijan Before September 1941
Seventy-one years ago on this day, Azerbaijanis, through the establishment of the Azerbaijani Democratic Party and subsequently the National Government, were once again able to enter the political equations of the country. With the rise of the National Government, many existing structures changed—among them the removal of the monopoly of Persian as the sole official language, land reforms, and granting women, for the first time in Iran, the right to vote and to be elected. Before that, and as a result of Reza Khan’s despotism and the events of 1920, Azerbaijan had witnessed a comprehensive decline. The authoritarian modernization policies of the government, Tehran’s homogenizing policies, and systemic economic discrimination had pushed Azerbaijan—once the most influential region of Iran—into the margins.
Yet before Reza Khan came to power, we see the emergence of progressive movements in Azerbaijan. It can even be said that the Constitutional Revolution in Tehran owed much to the Constitutional Revolution in Azerbaijan. In fact, social changes in the West, the reforms of the Ottoman Tanzimat period, cross-border interactions of people on both sides of the Aras River, the rise of leftist thought, and Azerbaijan’s geographic-historical position all contributed to making Azerbaijanis more active than others in the region’s socio-political transformations. For instance, the majority of the Democrats in Iran’s Second Parliament were Azerbaijanis. Sattar Khan and the Secret Society, the Adalat (Justice) Party led by Ghafarzadeh and Soltanzadeh, Heydar Khan Amou Oghlou, Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh, and many others exemplify Azerbaijani presence in the events of the Constitutional Revolution. Later, the Azerbaijani Democratic Party under the leadership of Sheikh Mohammad Khiyabani, Taqi Raf’at—the editor-in-chief of Tajaddod (Modernity) newspaper—, and Azerbaijanis such as Mir Jafar Pishevari, who played a role in the formation of Iran’s first communist movement, can also be added to this list. Even Ahmad Kasravi and figures such as Taqizadeh were considered progressive forces in this period.
Nevertheless, the absence of a strong central government, the disillusionment of political and social forces after the failed experience of the Constitutional Revolution, along with regional insecurity, paved the way for Reza Khan’s rise to power. In reality, people’s long-standing susceptibility to authoritarian rule—who, in order to escape chaos, submitted to “Reza Khan’s security”—, the disenchanted intellectuals who shifted allegiance in hopes of creating a modern state and a homogeneous nation, and several other minor factors, brought an end to the thousand-year-old rule of the Turks in Iran. Reza Khan then moved to suppress all political movements. This repression extended both to progressive movements and to others: in Tabriz, constitutionalists were executed; Sheikh Mohammad Khiyabani’s government in Azerbaijan was overthrown and Khiyabani himself killed. The Socialist Republic of Gilan, Sheikh Khaz’al’s uprising in the south, and Colonel Pesyan’s revolt in Khorasan were all crushed. Reza Khan also quelled the unrest caused by Bakhtiari and Lor tribes.
The years of Reza Khan’s reign were years of Azerbaijan’s isolation and the suppression of intellectual life there. The newspaper Mehd-e Iran (Cradle of Iran), a right-wing bourgeois publication, once wrote in one of its issues: “Democracy in Iran has been delayed for twenty years, and despotism has stifled the birth and growth of free thought.” Yet despite the repression of intellectual currents in Azerbaijan and the elimination of progressive forces, some groups continued their existence covertly during these twenty years. The circle of “the Fifty-three,” arrested in 1937 on charges of communist activity, was one such group. Although the number of Turks in this circle did not exceed the fingers of one hand, the most prominent among them, Taqi Arani, was an Azerbaijani. Similarly, Mir Jafar Pishevari—a prominent member of the old Communist Party of Iran and the main founder of the National Government in 1945—spent 11 years in Reza Khan’s prisons. Nevertheless, it was only after September 1941, following the abdication of the first Pahlavi monarch, that the discriminations imposed on Azerbaijan became nationally articulated demands within the vacuum of central power.
The Azerbaijani Democratic Party – Formation and Social Base
There are multiple views on the formation of the Azerbaijani Democratic Party, many of which, due to a lack of understanding of historical conditions and with preconceived judgments, have gone astray. Undoubtedly, the emergence of the National Government and the Azerbaijani Democratic Party was shaped by years of accumulated social, historical, and political factors. Without taking these contexts into account, any attempt to understand that period of contemporary history will inevitably be marked by misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
Reza Shah’s political turn and his rapprochement with Hitler’s Germany during the Second World War prompted the entry of Soviet and British military forces into Iranian territory on 25 August 1941 (3 Shahrivar 1320). The Soviet Union, invoking Article Six of the 1921 Treaty of Friendship, deployed its troops into Iran, paving the way for Reza Shah’s escape from the country and the strengthening of socio-political movements. Consequently, many political prisoners—communists, democrats, and progressive forces—were released and, seeking to play a role in the country’s political transformations, founded one of the most influential parties in Iran’s modern history: the Tudeh Party. Soleiman Mirza Eskandari, Reza Rousta, Mir Jafar Pishevari, Ardeshir Avanessian, Zein al-Abedin Ghiyami, Boqrat, and several others played roles in the formation of the Tudeh Party—though some sources deny Pishevari’s participation.
At the same time, socio-political forces in Azerbaijan also became active. Organizations such as the Azerbaijan Society, Workers’ Organization of Azerbaijan, Center of Democracy Supporters, regional associations, trade unions, and the Anti-Fascist Society of Azerbaijan were among the movements that emerged. Freedom-seeking circles in the cities of Tabriz, Urmia, Sarab, Khoy, Maragheh, and Marand organized rallies and public speeches. According to Mir Qasem Cheshm-Azar, in every such gathering without exception, the issue of national oppression against Azerbaijan was raised. One leaflet distributed on 20–21 September 1941 in Tabriz declared: “All that you have plundered and looted is enough. Leave us alone. Respectfully vacate our towns and land and return to your own homes.”
 |
| Seyid Jafar Pishevari, Chairman of the Azerbaijan Democratic Party, reading the Turkish-language newspaper Azerbaijan |
Between October 1941 and November 1945, twenty-one newspapers were published. Vatan Yolunda, Yumruq, and Edəbiyyat Sahifəsi in Tabriz; Qizil Asgar in Urmia; and Yumruq in Ardabil were published in Turkish. Bilingual newspapers such as Azerbaijan, Setareh-ye Azerbaijan (Star of Azerbaijan), and Khavar-e Now (New Orient) also circulated. The central government refused to grant licenses to any Turkish-language newspapers, so they were published without permits. Over the years, these newspapers persistently wrote in support of national and class-based demands.
The economic relations prevailing in Azerbaijan were among the most important factors accelerating the formation of the Party. In those years, much of Azerbaijan’s arable land was in the hands of feudal landlords. Of the 7,000 villages in Azerbaijan, 300 belonged to the Zolfaghari family in Zanjan, 160 to the Ashraf family, 253 to the Farmanfarma family in Mianeh and Sarab; the Moqaddam and Mousavi families in Maragheh; the Panahi family in Khalkhal; and the Vahabzadeh family in Ardabil each owned between 40 and 100 villages. Meanwhile, 60 percent of peasants owned no land at all. In reality, there was a destitute majority and a dominant minority—and it was this impoverished majority that formed the popular base of the Azerbaijani Democratic Party and the National Government.
Following the rejection of Mir Jafar Pishevari’s credentials in the Iranian parliament and his return to Tabriz, the Party began its activities on 3 September 1945 (12 Shahrivar 1324) with a 12-point declaration. This declaration addressed aspects of the discrimination inflicted upon Azerbaijan and outlined the Democratic Party’s programs to end them. The right to education in the mother tongue was among its articles—a right denied to Azerbaijanis for years. The declaration was signed by 47 well-known individuals from various backgrounds, which itself demonstrated the broad social base of the Party and its ties to different strata of society. Among the signatories were factory owners, guild representatives, clerics—including three clerics from Urmia (Esmail Alizadeh, Mir Kazem Nadimi, and Haji Esmail)—as well as journalists, educators, and others.
The establishment of the Party was met with widespread support from different social groups. Although the Tudeh Party of Iran opposed the creation of the Azerbaijani Democratic Party, Reza Rousta, a member of the Tudeh Central Committee, congratulated its founders. Bazaar merchants and guilds also expressed their support. Even the Qarapapaq and Shahsevan tribes welcomed the Party’s establishment. Hussein Pasha and Amir Fallah, the chiefs of the Qarapapaq tribe of the Sulduz region, along with Qolukhan Borchali and others, requested membership in the Azerbaijani Democratic Party. According to historical records, in just the first ten days after its founding, 10,000 people in Tabriz alone joined the Party. The Azerbaijan branch of the Tudeh Party also merged with it. Pishevari’s speeches were regularly printed in the press, and in all his speeches and writings, he emphasized democracy, freedom, and the right of oppressed nations to determine their own destiny.
Under these conditions, reactionary forces fiercely opposed the Party, branding it separatist. Newspapers such as Nasim-e Saba, Har, and Neda-ye Edalat published articles against it. At the same time, however, some circles in Tehran supported the Party’s democratic initiatives, including the newspapers Nejat-e Iran and the magazine Zaban, both belonging to Tehran-based freedom-seekers.
 |
| The inaugural session of the Azerbaijani National Assembly (Milli Majlis) in Southern Azerbaijan |
The Azerbaijani Democratic Party, the Soviet Union, and Its Intellectual Roots
In general, no government can exist in complete isolation without interacting with other powers. The same applies to the Azerbaijani Democratic Party, whose activities and relations must be understood in this light—especially when the counterpart in these relations was the Soviet Union during the Second World War, a country that at the time was perceived as the cradle of freedom and progressivism. It was also the country that played a decisive role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and to some extent, Europe owed its salvation to it.
At the same time, no document suggests that the Azerbaijani Democratic Party blindly obeyed the Soviet Union. Some have put forward such claims with prejudice, but a closer look at the documents suggests otherwise: Pishevari’s correspondence with the leaders of Soviet Azerbaijan, the constant efforts of the Tudeh Party to dissolve the Azerbaijani Democratic Party in exchange for political concessions from Prime Minister Qavam (including three ministerial posts), Pishevari’s assassination in Baku on the orders of Soviet leaders, and similar examples reinforce the idea of the Azerbaijani Democratic Party’s independence.
That said, one cannot deny that the Party had relations with the Soviet Union, but the nature of these ties has often been exaggerated in a biased way. First, such exaggerations stem from considerations that are still imposed in present-day Iran: discrediting the Azerbaijani Democratic Party serves as a way to delegitimize the current demands of the Turks, and as a diversion to prevent the offering of a progressive model of governance. Second, these exaggerations also stem from the remnants of a conspiracy mentality that has penetrated Iranian thought for nearly a century, in which every historical event is attributed to foreign intervention or a hidden hand. This mentality—from the Constitutional Revolution to the 1979 Revolution—has shaped all interpretations, and it is still channeled through centers of power in order to stifle the will for change at its very inception. As long as this supposed “hidden hand” is imagined to trigger every revolution and transformation, the will to change and faith in collective agency will remain weakened.
Today, thanks to the fabrications and falsifications of centralist historians, these prejudiced views and misinterpretations extend not only to the Party’s ties with the Soviet Union but also to the intellectual leanings of its members. Assigning the intellectual legacy of the Azerbaijani Democratic Party exclusively to the “Marxist left” suits the centralists because, historically, the left has not enjoyed a favorable reputation among Iranians, a disrepute further exacerbated by the dictatorships of those who inherited its legacy. Pinning the Party to this camp thus becomes a convenient pretext for further discrediting it. Had the left followed a different trajectory, today the same centralists would have sought to cleanse the Party’s image of it.
Pishevari had earlier been an active member of the Communist Party, founded in late 1920. He even served in a capacity akin to foreign affairs in the Socialist Republic of Gilan. However, the ups and downs of his life and his clear understanding of the conditions of the time shifted his intellectual outlook—perhaps best described as a turn toward socialism. Many of the leftist forces of that era failed to reach such an understanding; in a society where social classes had not yet been clearly defined and no proletariat had truly formed, speaking of a communist revolution was futile. Pishevari, recognizing this, thought from the far right of the leftist spectrum, and this was the basis of his disputes with figures such as Taqi Arani. When imprisoned with the group of Fifty-three, Pishevari appeared as a defender of the rights of peoples, whereas some of the Fifty-three emphasized the promotion of Persian monolingualism in the name of spreading Leninism throughout Iran.
It is also essential to keep in mind, when assessing the Party’s activities, that Azerbaijan at the time was under the domination of a small feudal elite. The Party’s actions were not aimed at building a classless society, but rather at expanding social justice. This justice was based on the freedom of peoples, the rights of minorities, the right of nations to self-determination, and an emphasis on equal rights for women and men—values that, for a year, provided the opportunity to practice democracy.