 |
| Text reading "Ana dilində mədrəsə" ("School in the mother tongue") written by language activists on the door of a public school in Azerbaijan, advocating for mother-tongue education. |
“Teaching the local language is not a public demand.” This is the headline on the front page of the Shargh newspaper dated September 4, referring to an interview with “Younesi,” Special Assistant on Ethnic and Religious Minorities to the President. The interview was conducted on the occasion of the news about the establishment of a Turkish language program in universities and in protest against the curriculum of this program. In part of his statements, Younesi asserts that “teaching the local language” is neither a national nor a public demand and that the most important demands of Iran’s ethnic groups are the elimination of deprivation and recognition of their dignity. In another part of the interview, he recommends teaching non-Persian languages only to optimize the teaching of Persian; in other words, in his view, teaching non-Persian languages is necessary solely to enhance Persian itself, not to promote these other languages. In attempting to justify the prevailing linguistic oppression, he inadvertently legitimizes the marginalization and humiliation of those living on the peripheries.
Shargh also, in its 14 Shahrivar [September 5] issue, with an article by “Mehrdad Mirsanjari,” declared the teaching of local languages illegal and strongly opposed it. Aside from the superficial approach of the reformist newspaper Shargh toward ethnic demands, several points regarding the claims of the President’s ethnic and religious advisor merit attention:
-
Civil demands of different social groups in Iran do not have equal opportunities to be voiced, presented, or discussed publicly. Therefore, determining whether a particular demand is widespread or public is not necessarily accurate. When there is no avenue for raising awareness about a right, indifference toward it is natural. Turk nationalism and related ethnic demands neither have a platform in domestic media nor receive support from foreign outlets. Yet, the civil movement arising from Turk nationalism has carved out a public space, as evidenced by two street demonstrations with themes of ethnic protest and demands in Azerbaijani cities just in the past year. This urban political activism continues even as most other social and political movements in Iran are in a period of dormancy, having retreated from urban spaces.
Although the establishment of the Turkish Language and Literature program at Tabriz University—despite ambiguities regarding the future employment prospects of graduates and the academic level of instructors—is unlikely to achieve much, it is nevertheless a token made possible by the dynamic, demand-driven movement that still exists in public spaces in Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, Younesi, through his recent statements, seeks to magnify the establishment of this arguably ineffectual program and claim it as a success of his government, portraying the “Rouhani administration” as a savior for the Turks.
-
If teaching in the Turkish language were to be implemented as a result of a “public demand,” then would the teaching of Persian also follow the same process? Mandatory Persian instruction is not a demand of non-Persian ethnic groups, so on what basis does the President’s advisor make the teaching of local languages dependent on the “public demand” of these groups? Younesi speaks of public demand so brazenly that he seems to imply that all existing institutions and arrangements in Iran operate according to the collective will of the people, and that the current government is among the most democratic in the world.
Moreover, no rigorous investigation has been conducted to refute the collective will of the Turks regarding the official recognition of their mother tongue. On the contrary, the formal recognition of the Turkish language is one of the main demands of the majority of the Turk population, and centralists cannot push this demand to the margins by repeating their pathological assumptions.
-
A challenge arises: can democratic arrangements be overridden by relying on majority rule? Can democracy negate itself?
Such an understanding of democracy is fundamentally flawed. The majority cannot override the human rights of minorities.
Even if Younesi’s claims about the lack of public demand for non-Persian language instruction were correct, this still cannot justify the continuation of the existing policies of linguistic and cultural oppression. The parameters of the human rights of the Turks are not defined by whether they voice a demand or remain silent. Even if their demand is limited to a few individuals, and even if a majority is determined to violate those rights, our linguistic rights—like all our human rights—are non-negotiable and cannot depend on the will of others.