Farah Taheri | Shahrvand Magazine | March 3, 2011
 |
| From right: Amir Hasan Pour, Yousef Azizi Benitorof, Alireza Asgharzadeh. |
Iran is a multi-ethnic country: A look at the rights of the Turkish, Arab, and Kurdish nationalities in the speeches of Alireza Asgharzadeh, Yousef Azizi Benitorof, and Amir Hasanzadeh.
On the occasion of February 21, International Mother Language Day, Shahrvand took a commendable action this year by holding a seminar on Sunday, February 20, 2011, featuring three intellectuals and political activists from the Iranian Turkish, Kurdish, and Arab nationalities to discuss national oppression and the rights of Iranian nationalities.
Dr. Alireza Asgharzadeh, Yousef Azizi Benitorof, and Dr. Amir Hasanzadeh participated in this panel, and Shahrvand had hoped to include a speech from a Persian ethnic representative, which unfortunately did not materialize.
Leila Mojtahedi, a colleague at Shahrvand, moderated the first part of the program. At the beginning, she welcomed the attendees and read a statement on behalf of Shahrvand, the organizer. |
| Leila Mojtahedi |
She stated, “As you know, throughout its more than twenty-year existence, Shahrvand has faced one of its fundamental challenges: advocating the discourse of freedom and democracy. By publishing diverse political, social, and literary thoughts and opinions, it has sought to promote this discourse and instill the most important pillar of the culture of democracy and freedom—acceptance and respect for the other—among its readers... One of the discourses that we believe can instill the culture of democracy and freedom within us is the right to education in one’s mother tongue, which, of course, has been regarded as taboo by some of us, equating its discussion with the denial of territorial integrity and separatism in our country, Iran. Fortunately, enlightened and compassionate individuals, whether on the right, center, or left, have correctly addressed this issue, which is one of the most significant barriers to democracy and freedom. Gradually, this taboo, laden with a culture of insults, slogans, slander, and accusations, is being broken, replaced by scientific and precise dialogue, and this dialogue is also in pursuit of healing painful wounds. This meeting is another step toward examining this important issue. We at Shahrvand hope that by organizing these gatherings, we can engage in meaningful discussions about this issue, exploring its various facets and ultimately identifying appropriate and logical solutions.”
Before the speeches began, gratitude was expressed to the 'Foundation of the Language and Culture of Azerbaijan Iran-Canada,' which had supported Shahrvand in organizing the event. Leila Mojtahedi then introduced the first speaker.
Dr. Alireza Asgharzadeh completed his graduate studies in Political Science, Philosophy, and Sociology at the University of Toronto and is currently engaged in teaching and research in Sociology and Education at York University. In addition to his other works, he is the author of "Iran and the Challenge of Diversity" (Palgrave Macmillan) and a co-author of "Schooling and Difference in Africa." He has also published numerous articles on Iran, Azerbaijan, the Middle East, social theory, sociological theories, language, pedagogy, and more in scientific and academic journals.
 |
| Dr. Alireza Asgharzadeh |
The topic of Dr. Asgharzadeh's speech was “Language, Ethnicity/Race, and Identity: A Discourse on the Necessity of Anti-Racist Struggle in Iran.”
He presented his remarks in four sections: the definition of race and racism, the position and importance of anti-racist discourse on a global scale, the position and importance of anti-racist discourse in Iran, and the position and importance of anti-racist discourse at the local level (among non-Persian peoples).
Dr. Asgharzadeh concluded his remarks by stating: "We know that the youth of the Middle East are today engaged in a valiant struggle for the establishment of their dignity and human rights. They have reached a level of political and social awareness where they consider the existence of lifetime rulers an insult to their human intellect. Likewise, the people and youth of Iran view living under the yoke of a medieval fundamentalist government as a disgrace, and they are fighting to uphold their dignity and human worth. Meanwhile, activists from non-Persian ethnic groups, in addition to their anti-government and anti-Velayat-e-Faqih struggles, regard the prohibition of their mother tongue in educational institutions as a shame; they see such bans and oppression as an affront to their dignity and humanity and have risen up to achieve humane and dignified living conditions. It is upon the intellectuals and thinkers in the capital and central regions to strengthen the discourse and actions against racism, thereby demonstrating their commitment to democratic principles and human rights.
The sustainable unity of all Iranians against the totalitarian Islamic regime will only be possible if Persian intellectuals and activists recognize and join the anti-racist movement that has begun and developed among non-Persian ethnic groups. One of the essential manifestations of anti-racist awareness for Persian intellectuals is the critique of the cultural and linguistic hegemony of Persians in Iran and the effort to grant official status to the national and natural languages of non-Persian ethnic groups. The principle of equal rights for non-Persian ethnic groups and Persians is a democratic and progressive principle. Anyone who does not believe in this fundamental human rights principle cannot expect their slogans and messages regarding democracy and human rights to be taken seriously. Anti-racist struggles have a history of at least five hundred years worldwide and are recognized globally as democratic and human rights efforts. As activists of non-Persian ethnic groups, it is our duty to turn anti-racist discourse and action into the dominant narrative of the people's struggle in Iran."
The next speaker, Yousef Azizi Benitorof, was a guest of Shahrvand magazine from London, England.
Yousef Azizi, known as Benitorof, is an Iranian Arab born in Susangerd in 1951 and a graduate of management from the University of Tehran. Since 1978, Benitorof has been a member of the Iranian Writers' Association, and since July 2008, he has been a member of the Board of Directors of the Iranian Writers' Association. Yousef Azizi Benitorof works as a journalist, writing in both Arabic and Persian, and has published 24 books and hundreds of articles in Arabic and Persian media. His stories, articles, and research have been translated into Arabic, Turkish, English, and Italian. He writes in three areas: fiction, research about the Arab people of Ahvaz (Khuzestan), and translation from Arabic to Persian. His translations include the intellectual and literary works of contemporary Arab writers and poets. Yousef Azizi (Benitorof) is a staunch advocate for freedom of expression without any restrictions or exceptions, and he is currently an honorary member of the British Pen Association, having received several international awards, including the Hellman/Hammett Prize. Some of his works include the story "The Eyes of Sherbet," the research "About the Arab People of Khuzestan" and "The Breeze of Karun," as well as translations such as "Olive Leaves," the poetry collection of Mahmoud Darwish, "Selected Contemporary Arab Poetry," "The Palestinian Boy," "The Battle of the Palestinian People Before 1948," two novels by Naguib Mahfouz, "Freemasonry in the Arab World," and "The Shavings of a Woman," which is a poetry collection by Kuwaiti poet Suad Al-Sabah.
Benitorof has also written several books in Arabic, including "Iran Confused Between Authoritarianism and Democracy."
Yousef Azizi Benitorof began his speech by thanking the Shahrvand for organizing the program and greeting the people of Iran, who are currently fighting against religious tyranny, with their blood being spilled on the ground. This statement was met with encouragement from the attendees in the hall.
 |
| Yousef Azizi Benitorof |
Here is a summary of his remarks:
Iran is a multi-ethnic country with indigenous peoples, and this has been the case throughout history. The emergence of the national issue generally arose with the advent of capitalism in Iranian society alongside the Constitutional Revolution and took on its full form during the reign of Reza Shah.
During the Qajar era, Iran was referred to as the 'Protected Territories of Iran,' which we see in the amendment to the Constitution. In that same law, Persian was declared the official language, and Shia Islam was declared the official religion, laying the foundation for inequality from the time of the Constitutional Revolution.
The issue of national oppression consists of a range of discriminations, including linguistic, religious, cultural, political, and economic discrimination. This national oppression is the basis for national inequality in Iranian society. Other forms of discrimination, such as gender discrimination against women, are not the focus of our discussion here.
National oppression began during Reza Shah's era, characterized by the extraordinary concentration of power accompanied by Persian nationalism. Over the past seventy to eighty years, there has been an effort to impose the notion that Persian literature belongs to all the people of Iran and to present the history of one nation as the history of all Iranian nationalities, while Persian is portrayed as the language of all Iranian nationalities. However, Iranian society is diverse, and each of its ethnic groups has its own history and literary history, which the Reza Shah regime sought to invalidate. Therefore, addressing these inequalities necessitates recognizing the rights of nationalities and ethnic groups in Iran. The issue of national identity and nationalities has been a democratic issue since its inception; their rights are democratic rights and part of the unmet demands of the democratic revolution of the Iranian people, which began in the early twentieth century and has yet to reach a conclusion. Even now, the fighters of the Iranian ethnic groups continue to shed blood, endure imprisonment, suffer torture, and face violations in their struggle for Iran to become a democratic country that respects human rights and the rights of non-Persian nationalities.
We may have disagreements with some political groups regarding the definition of democracy. They envision democracy while ignoring the rights of non-Persian nationalities, and some refer to non-Persian nationalities as a 'branch' or 'tribe' of Iranians, which lacks scientific basis.
Given that the wave of democracy after the fall of the Berlin Wall swept through Eastern Europe and has now reached the gates of the Middle East due to the resilience of the dictators ruling over Middle Eastern and Islamic countries, we hold great hope that this wave will be accompanied by the fulfillment of the rights of non-Persian nationalities.
Regarding the inequality between non-Persian nationalities and the dominant nation, we can begin with the very terminology used. Some intellectuals and theorists of the dominant nation attempt to label us as "tribes" and speak of "tribes." The term "tribe" refers to human groups that sustain their livelihoods through nomadic lifestyles and seasonal migrations; it is an archaic term. For instance, we might say "Mongolian tribe," but we do not refer to the nations residing in Iran, which have their own languages, histories, geographies, and territories, as tribes. All of these groups fall under the definition of a nation, and it is not by coincidence that some fair-minded intellectuals refer to Iran as a multi-ethnic country. The Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, and Turkmen in Iran are not tribes; they are nations. They make up more than 50% of the Iranian nation, and in fact, the wealth of Iran is sourced from the regions inhabited by these nationalities. For example, Khuzestan, known as Arabistan, contributes 80% to 85% of Iran's wealth, while Azerbaijan provides wheat and other natural resources, and Kurdistan does the same. The same goes for Turkmen Sahra and Baluchestan. However, the economy of Iran has become one of center and periphery, with the center being Tehran—primarily Northern Tehran—and a few other favored cities. This uneven development has led to peripheral regions, which are predominantly inhabited by various nationalities, being at very low levels of economic advancement.
For example, 95% of the books published in Iran are in Persian, while only 5% are published in Turkish, Kurdish, Arabic, Baluchi, and Turkmen for over 50% of the Iranian population. These languages are not lesser languages; Arabic, for instance, is currently one of the international languages, and if conditions were favorable, they could produce literature in these languages. The dominance of a single language has stifled the development of these languages. They lack academies, are not taught in elementary schools, and do not have magazines or books that reflect their population size.
From a political perspective, statistics indicate that most officials are elected from Tehran, and these nationalities have no legislative or executive institutions in their own regions. The extraordinary and ironclad centralization in the capital means that all eyes are on Tehran, resulting in minimal participation in political power for these groups. Consequently, this leads to inequalities in the distribution of political power, wealth, and status between the dominant nationality and non-Persian nationalities.
After the revolution, despite efforts in the early days to include the rights of non-Persian nationalities in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, only Articles 15 and 19 were included, and even these two articles have not been implemented to this day.
The nationalities residing in Iran are all indigenous and have lived in the Iranian plateau for thousands of years, with some predating the arrival of the Aryans. They have rights that are recognized by the United Nations. These rights begin with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that all human beings are free and equal in rights. Another article in the special agreement against crimes related to genocide outlines that any actions intended to partially or wholly destroy any ethnic, national, or religious group—whether through killing members, causing harm, or placing the group in dangerous living conditions—are criminal acts. Such actions are taking place in Iran. In Iran, hundreds of hectares of agricultural land belonging to Arabs are confiscated by the government along both sides of the Karun River to uproot them and subject them to a fate similar to that of the Turkmen, who were rendered landless during the era of Reza Shah. These acts are considered crimes under international law. The last declaration concerning the rights of ethnic groups was adopted by the United Nations on December 18, 1992, and none of these rights have been implemented in Iran.
Not only have Articles 15 and 19 been ignored during the Islamic Republic era, but even in the Constitution of the Constitutional Revolution, we had Article 90, which states that state and provincial assemblies shall be organized according to specific regulations, and describes how these assemblies should function. This was also overlooked during the Pahlavi era because it pertained to nationalities. We saw how the movement led by Pishavari in the 1940s, which aimed to implement this article, was met with brutal and repressive measures.
Regarding the Arab people, I would like to briefly mention some points since I know many of my compatriots have limited information on this topic. The language of these people is Arabic. In fact, the dialect spoken by the Arabs of Ahvaz—which I refer to as the entire province—is one of the closest dialects to the mother tongue spoken in Hijaz. The religion of the people is Islam, and the majority are Shia. However, in recent years, in reaction to the ruling religious authority in Iran, there has been a growing Sunni movement among Arab youth, which is expanding day by day. The government labels these youths as Wahhabi instead of addressing the roots of this trend. Among the Arab population of Ahvaz, there are also Christians (Nasarani) and Sabians or Mandaeans.
The culture of the Arab people of Ahvaz is distinct from other cultures. Essentially, the Arabs of Ahvaz or Khuzestan province (historically known as Arabistan) comprise six tribes: Bani Tamim, Bani Kab, Bani Lam, Bani Rabiah, Bani Torof, and Al-Kathir. Historically, this region has had three names: Ahvaz, Ahwaz, and Arabistan. During the era of Reza Shah, to erase the identity of these people, the name Arabistan—which had been used since the Safavid era—was changed to Khuzestan. In contrast, regions such as Lorestan, Balochistan, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, and Gilan, which all reflect the nationalities of those areas, were not renamed. This highlights the peak of anti-Arab racism within the ruling establishment of Iran, both during the Pahlavi era and the Islamic Republic. For instance, in the Islamic Republic, Rezaieh became Urmia, Bandar Pahlavi became Bandar Anzali, and Shah Port became Turkman Port. However, they have not allowed either the name of the province to revert to its historical Arabic-Iranian name or the names of cities. For instance, Khorramshahr is still referred to as Mohammerah, Susangerd is still called Khafajiyeh, and Shadgan is still Falahieh. The Arab people of Ahvaz are still engaged in naming disputes with the Iranian government, struggling over the most basic aspects of their identity.
Anti-Arab racism and Arab phobia in Iran and our region have both historical and geographical dimensions. The historical aspect dates back to the Sho’ubi movement and continues through figures like Ferdowsi up to the 19th and 20th centuries. Of course, Persian literature has not always been anti-Arab; this trend was more prominent in the 3rd and 4th centuries. After that, we have figures like Nasir Khosrow, Rumi, Saadi, and Hafez, who epitomize mysticism and humanistic themes, with no traces of racism in their works. However, in the 19th century, with the arrival of racist ideologies from the West, anti-Arab sentiments were propagated in Iran as well. The Arabs have always sacrificed for their homeland. During the war with their fellow speakers in Iraq, out of the sixteen thousand martyrs who fell, twelve thousand were Arabs, according to the statistics from the Foundation of Martyrs in the province. Nevertheless, they have consistently been subjected to conspiratorial plots and schemes from the center to erase their national identity throughout the Pahlavi era and the Islamic Republic to this day.
I believe that democracy in Iran will not be realized without granting full rights to non-Persian nationalities, including the Arab people of Ahvaz. This will require long, enlightening, and awareness-raising struggles, and I hope that day will come.
The next speaker was Dr. Amir Hasanpour. Dr. Hasanpour was born in Mahabad and has never separated his political struggle from education and research since he began his studies at the University of Tehran. For the past twenty years, after emigrating to Canada, he has taught and conducted research at the universities of Windsor, Concordia, and Toronto, with a significant part of his academic work focused on nationalism, social movements, and revolution.
 |
| Dr. Amir Hasanpour |
Dr. Hasanpour began his remarks by thanking the audience and expressing his happiness regarding the struggles initiated by the people of the Middle East and North Africa, stating: "These are very historic moments. We live in a world filled with oppression, exploitation, hunger, famine, massacres, and religious and ethnic wars... and I am very glad that my life has lasted long enough to witness these struggles."
While expressing his joy at being part of a panel alongside two knowledgeable and activist scholars, Dr. Hasanpour also conveyed his sadness about why it should be a Kurd, an Azerbaijani, and an Arab discussing national oppression. He acknowledged that those who truly understand national oppression are those who have experienced it, similar to the oppression faced by women. Women are often better than men at understanding, researching, discussing, and fighting against the depths of patriarchal oppression. However, he pointed out that national oppression is a political phenomenon, and it is not necessary for someone to be a Kurd to discuss it. He noted that if such a panel had been held in Turkey, it could have been different. He referenced the Turkish sociologist İsmail Beşikçi, who has dedicated his entire life to fighting for the rights of the Kurdish people and their right to self-determination, and who was sentenced to 115 years in prison, of which he served about fifteen years before being released. He also mentioned Tanıl Bora, a relatively younger Turkish sociologist who has devoted his academic life to recognizing the genocide of the Armenian people in Turkey. Unfortunately, he lamented that in Iran, there are no similar figures from the Persian nationality who have researched and fought for the right to self-determination of the nationalities in Iran to this extent.
Of course, the communist movement has recognized the right to self-determination for the nationalities of Iran for many years, but my discussion is at a broader societal level.
I critique a political policy that still exists in Iran, which I refer to as the political program of the nationalists of Iran. This includes a wide spectrum, from secular nationalists to nationalist-religious figures and leftist intellectuals who have now become nationalists.
I personally do not believe in borders, nor do I advocate for the creation of new states. I do not believe in the concept of homeland and country, and I think borders are particularly relics of an ancient world. My wish is to eliminate all borders. I am deeply saddened that humanity is divided into separate nationalities and ethnicities. I take no pride in any nationality. I view nationalism critically, whether it belongs to the oppressor nation or the oppressed; although nationalism among the oppressed nations contains an element of justice, as it fights against national oppression, nationalism is still an ancient phenomenon for me. However, none of this means that I deny the existence of nations. Nations and nationalities exist; nationalism exists; borders exist. I am currently a legal citizen of Canada. But my main argument is that humanity has long, for at least one hundred and fifty years, reached a point intellectually, mentally, emotionally, politically, and theoretically where borders should be removed. These borders are an obstacle to the further development of humanity.
My discussion is about the worldview of the nationalists, specifically Iranian nationalists who are predominantly Persian nationalists. When I mention this, I do not mean to imply that only Persians hold this type of nationalism. For example, someone like Ahmad Kasravi, who was himself Azerbaijani, was an extreme Persian nationalist, to the point of being a Pan-Iranist. I see nationalism as a political phenomenon and do not intend to target Persians specifically in my critique.
In my view, national oppression is one of the significant barriers to the growth of democracy in Iran. Democracy, for me, is not only free elections, parliamentary regimes, press freedom, and civil liberties. I see democracy as the exercise of power by a class. It is the dominance of a system, and democracy and dictatorship are not mutually exclusive; both usually coexist. How do nationalists address national oppression? The world has changed significantly, but unfortunately, the approach of Iranian nationalists has not changed at all. They argue that we do not have a national issue in Iran. They claim we do not have an ethnic issue. They insist that we Iranians do not practice national oppression, do not engage in racism, and do not have slavery. One of my colleagues said a few years ago that we Iranians do not have a peasant movement; I replied, “Why are you ignoring a thousand years of feudalism in Iran?” We Iranians are Aryans, not Arabs, not Semitic, not Turks; we are Zoroastrians, the descendants of Ahura Mazda. We Iranians are a superior nation, a chosen people, an exceptional historical case... This is a perspective you can often see in writings and interviews. It is not merely self-praise; politically, this is called chauvinistic nationalism.
For example, a person named Taloo Azad, in an interview with Dr. Parsa Benab in the Shahrvand newspaper, states, “We do not have a national issue within the country…” In the next paragraph, they say, “We also do not have an ethnic issue, but we have legitimate demands from ethnic groups for equal human rights, but not for the right to self-determination.” They mention human rights, not national or linguistic rights. Another example comes from the Mahr magazine, which I believe is linked to the Green movement, where there is an article claiming, “The path to democracy does not go through federalism,” in which Mr. Hamid Ahmadi is asked, “Why do you consider the discussion of federalism as a leftist ideological issue?” They claim that the discourse on ethnic nationalism in Iran is a product of leftist discourse. Discussions about nationalities, peoples, and ethnic groups in Iran originated from the Iranian Communist Party, followed by the Tudeh Party and later the Fadai Guerrilla Organization... I will not read the rest.
However, the point is that the issue of nationality, the existence of nations, and the right to self-determination do not have a socialist origin; they are part of the bourgeois democracy or liberal democracy project. If I were to give examples, some of England’s colonies, now the United States, declared independence unilaterally in 1776 without negotiating with England. Norway separated from Sweden peacefully in 1905, and we remember that Czechoslovakia split in 1992. Sudan also recently separated, and as for Canada, I hope Quebec does not separate, but it is in the process.
The quotes I have mentioned should be taken seriously. Nationalists are very serious about their positions. They explicitly state that if they come to power, they do not want linguistic rights or the right to self-determination. My question is, the world has changed; if tomorrow or the day after, the people of Kurdistan, Baluchistan, Azerbaijan, or Ahvaz want to hold a referendum and separate from Iran, will you send the Shah’s army to massacre them, or will you accept that the nationalities of Iran have the right to hold a referendum like in Sudan? Part of the democratic process that your ancestors recognized in the United States and elsewhere two or three hundred years ago is this right. Google "Universal Declaration of Independence" and see how many countries became independent. This is a recognized right.
In 1995, when there was a referendum in Canada, I was in Quebec and voted. It was very close for Quebec to become independent. The government at the time, Jean Chrétien, asked the Supreme Court of Canada to answer several questions: Is there a basis in Canadian law for Quebec to become independent unilaterally, that is, without consulting Ottawa? Is there an opportunity in international law for Quebec to separate? If you Google "Reference re Secession of Quebec," you will find all the documents regarding this case. After three years of consultation with legal experts, the Supreme Court’s response was that there is no basis for Quebec to become independent because the Quebec nation does not suffer oppression and has the means for the right to self-determination and is almost a semi-independent country. Some of Canada’s embassies pertain to Quebec, and Quebec has its own representatives there and directly accepts immigrants. The Supreme Court’s argument was that the Quebec nation does not suffer oppression; however, if they wanted to separate in a referendum, negotiations should be entered into, and it did not say that the army should be sent there.
My speech is directed towards the nationalists of Iran. Bourgeois democracy has had two ways to address the national question thus far: one is through murder, massacre, genocide, assimilation, and mass exile, and the other is by adopting the democratic path, like what was done to the Tamils in Sri Lanka last year or following the Sudanese model. As far as I can see from their writings, their worldview advocates a path of violence. What is the solution? In my opinion, the solution is for those who believe in a non-violent approach—whether communists or non-communists—to fight and try to create a political culture in Iran where these ideas are accepted: Iran is a multi-ethnic country, nationalities are subjected to national oppression, nationalities have the right to self-determination, and in the future of Iran, national oppression will be eliminated. Nationalities should be encouraged to unite in their struggle against the existing regime and to create another Iran.
What is the correct way to work? The correct approach is for me, as a Kurd, not to advocate for separation. While I believe that all nationalities in Iran have the right to self-determination, I should say that they should not exercise this right but rather unite in the struggle to overthrow this regime and create another Iran where there is no national, religious, racial, sexual oppression, or class exploitation. As a Kurd, I should promote unity, while Persians should advocate for separation by acknowledging that these are oppressed nations and that they have the right to separate from Iran, but it is better that they do not. Why? If I do not take a position of unity, my stance becomes that of Kurdish nationalism. Dr. Asgharzadeh gave an example that, unfortunately, there is also chauvinism among oppressed nationalities. I have no choice but to say that the Kurdish and Azerbaijani people must unite in their struggle with the Persian people to overthrow and change this regime. If a Persian does not accept the right of nations to self-determination, I doubt their commitment to democracy.
I say that a country where 25 million Azerbaijanis do not have the right to be educated in their mother tongue is better off disintegrating. (Applause) Virginia Woolf, an English novelist, said eighty years ago, “As a woman, I have no country; a country that oppresses me is not my country.” The same applies to nationalities. A country that forcibly denies millions of Turks, Kurds, Arabs, and Baluchis their fundamental right to education in their mother tongue has no honor; in my view, it is better for it to disintegrate.
From a communist perspective, the main problem that national oppression creates is the limitation of democracy, but its greater danger is that, in the long run, it tears apart the working class, the women’s movement, and the student movement. National oppression is one of the most dangerous and all-encompassing forms of oppression. It’s not just about separating Azerbaijan from Iran; it destroys various movements. We must take this issue seriously. The struggle to get the nationalists, even within the framework of bourgeois democracy, to adopt a path of tolerance and democracy instead of violence is a difficult fight, and much effort is needed. National oppression is a great monster that we must confront. I hope we can all work together to change the political culture in Iran.
After a short break, the second part of the panel included a Q&A session, moderated by Hassan Zerehi, the editor-in-chief of Shahrvand magazine. Due to the sound system being broken and only one microphone working, it was decided that questions would be written down for Mr. Zerehi to read aloud. This had its pros and cons. Reading the questions saved time, as in previous sessions many did not adhere to the two-minute limit for asking questions, which left many unable to ask theirs. However, some people complained that their questions were not read or answered properly.
This section was somewhat tense, as there were attendees who were deeply disturbed by even hearing the word “separation,” let alone being able to talk about it.
 |
| Hassan Zerehi moderated the Q&A section. |
Most of the questions revolved around the issue of secession, and Dr. Hassanpour repeatedly had to clarify that, as a Kurd, he advocates for unity, and it is the Persians who should defend the right to self-determination for the various nationalities.
Sample questions included: "Can you explain the right to self-determination?" ... "What is your suggestion regarding a national language?" ... "Mr. Hassanpour's remarks seem to carry the scent of separatism" ... "Mr. Benitorof, how do you define ethnicity and nationality?" ... "What should be done to unite the nationalities of Iran?" ... "The transformation of West Azerbaijan into a crisis region" ... "The role of the Sheikh and the Shah in spreading racism and Iranian nationalism."
One question was also directed at Shahrvand magazine, stating: "A few years ago, we created the Arab Ahvaz People's Association and sent several statements to Shahrvand, but none were published. Why?" Mr. Zerehi explained that they were right, and that they had not published them because they believed the group advocated for separatism, and they are against separatism. (Applause from the audience)
After most of the questions were read, each of the speakers was given ten minutes to provide their responses.
First, Dr. Asgharzadeh responded to the questions. Regarding a national language, he said: "We need to look at how the world has addressed this issue. For example, in Ghana, there are 9 official languages. Or in India, English is one of the official languages. Therefore, in my opinion, all the national languages within the boundaries of Iran should become official languages, and we should place more emphasis on English as a language that is not the mother tongue of any of the ethnic groups living in Iran. This would create neutrality in the issue of linguistic colonialism, which we are currently dealing with."
On racism and global imperialism, he stated: "Yes, they are directly related. You cannot separate Aryan racism in Iran from Hitlerian racism, Nazism, and the racism that emerged from the Age of Enlightenment..."
What should be done to unite the people? "In my opinion, all aspects of exploitation and colonization need to be identified, and the intellectuals and activists of the Persian nation must recognize the linguistic and cultural privilege they possess and the colonialism that, through these privileges and the power relations they hold, is imposed on the people of Iran. When we begin to criticize and expose the power and hegemony of the Persian ethnicity in Iran, then the first positive step in this regard will be taken."
He added, "The role of political rulers in promoting racism has certainly been significant. You cannot ignore the impact of Reza Shah's court, his personal influence, and the Pahlavi dynasty in fostering Aryan racism in Iran. This still exists today, and the Islamic Republic is also trying, in various ways, to reinforce the racist relations that were inherited from the Pahlavi era."
Regarding the final question about the relationship between the two oppressed and brotherly peoples, the Azerbaijani and Kurdish people, Dr. Asgharzadeh stated: "I didn't address the issue raised about Solduz in 1991; I only said that we need to strengthen the anti-racist discourse and actions from three perspectives: the global perspective, the overall perspective of Iran, and the inter-ethnic relations, especially between the Azerbaijani and Kurdish ethnic groups. I mentioned that there is anti-Kurdish racism within some Azerbaijani movements and vice versa. Aryan racism is not exclusive to the Persian ethnicity; unfortunately, among Kurds, there are also interpretations of this Aryan superiority. So, my solution was that by strengthening the anti-racist discourse, we can change this ethnic hatred."
After Dr. Asgharzadeh's speech ended, protests arose from the audience. Most of the objections were about the suggestion of English as the shared or national language.
 |
| Seminar on the Rights of Ethnicities and Nationalities in Iran |
Dr. Hassanpour's turn came to respond to the questions addressed to him. He began by talking about the national language of the future, stating: "I believe that in a democratic Iran, Persian will be the first shared language, and the ethnic groups of Iran will have the freedom to use their own languages."
Regarding a question that claimed the Persian nation seeks national oppression, he said: "The Persian nation consists of various classes, two genders—men and women, and both rural and urban populations. You cannot say that the entire Persian nation oppresses other ethnicities. This oppression, particularly from the Pahlavi era onward, has mostly come from the state, but there have also been other individuals. A hardworking person from Shiraz or Kerman has no means to oppress a Kurd or an Azerbaijani. National oppression is related to political power in today’s context. My argument was never that the entire Persian nation oppresses other ethnicities."
As for the comment that his words hinted at separatism, Dr. Hassanpour said: "I am surprised because I mentioned that as a Kurd, I shouldn’t come here and argue for the right to self-determination. I should be advocating unity for overthrowing this regime and creating a different Iran. But unfortunately, among Persian intellectuals, no one comes forward to criticize Persian nationalist chauvinism."
He continued: "Unfortunately, from my perspective, Iran is already divided. Kurdistan, Baluchistan, Azerbaijan, and Khuzestan, which are kept within the 'motherland' by the force of bullets, the power of the Islamic army, and the Revolutionary Guards, are not united in my view. The future Iran I envision is not this one. This is the Iran of Reza Shah, Mohammad Reza Shah, the Qajar kings, Khamenei, and Khomeini. I speak of unity on a different level, which certainly doesn't align with the views of the nationalists, but they too can learn like I did. I was a Kurdish nationalist in my youth, but I completely distanced myself from nationalism. I still defend the rights of the Kurdish people and other ethnicities in Iran, but I do so from an internationalist perspective. Why should I respect borders and homeland? The whole world is my homeland." (Applause from the audience)
A serious question concerned the transformation of West Azerbaijan into a crisis zone between Kurds and Turks. "Unfortunately, the ruling regime can easily maintain its dominance by creating something like the Nagadeh incident at the beginning of the revolution. A shooting happens, some Turks kill Kurds or some Kurds kill Turks, and it turns into Yugoslavia."
Friends, the issue is not whether it’s the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. These are not our concerns; the matters at hand are much more serious. The issue is the current situation of Iran and its people. The people of the world have risen up—how long are we going to continue these ancient ways of thinking? Unfortunately, Kurdish nationalism and Azerbaijani nationalism are in conflict in West Azerbaijan. This conflict is artificial. During the National Government of Azerbaijan, these differences existed, but they resolved them in a democratic manner. Around forty students from Mahabad and Bukan studied in Tabriz. The National Government of Azerbaijan was more advanced than Kurdistan. It provided educational assistance to Kurdistan, offered printing presses, paper, and military support. This is the history I want: the history of the unity between the Kurdish and Azerbaijani peoples in 1946. That is the real history; the rest is the history of Kurdish and Turkish chieftains who tried to pit the people against each other. My history is that one year when these two peoples were united. I was three years old during the time of the National Government, but later, as I grew up in Mahabad, there was always talk of that one year. My father used to say that during that year, whenever we went to Tabriz for trade, the people of Tabriz treated us with respect. When the government of Azerbaijan fell, that changed. What does that mean? It means that the Azerbaijani and Kurdish peoples have no inherent problems with each other. All these issues about whether the city of Salmas is Kurdish, Turkish, or Assyrian can all be resolved democratically. If it was possible sixty years ago, why can’t it be done now?
It was now Mr. Azizi Benitorof's turn to respond. He said: Regarding a national language in Iran, many proposals have been made, and it has been suggested that any language that becomes official will gain advantages. Therefore, I emphasize that we should have as many official languages as we have national languages in Iran. Of course, we need a common language for communication, and that is Persian. Let me also say that I love the Persian language very much. Out of my 24 books, 20 are written in Persian. I have no animosity toward the Persian language, but I expect Persian speakers to respect my mother tongue as well and grant me and other non-Persian speakers the right to be educated in our native languages. I sincerely ask my Persian-speaking compatriots to put themselves in our shoes. Imagine that at the age of seven, someone tells you that you can no longer speak your own language, and you must speak, for example, Chinese, read their literature, and you are not allowed to print stories and poems or have media in your mother tongue. How would my Persian compatriots feel? In your private moments, reflect and consider whether this injustice is being inflicted upon us or not.
As for the topic of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf, especially the Persian Gulf, it has become a taboo subject abroad, and no one is allowed to discuss it; otherwise, they will call you a traitor unless you prove that it's called the Persian Gulf. Dear friends, the word 'Arabistan' is a Persian word. We do not have 'stan' (province) in Arabic. Arabistan means 'province of the Arabs.' This term, according to all Persian historians, from the time of Shah Abbas Safavi—take the Alam Ara Abbasi to the Tazkerat Al-Naseri of Naser al-Din Shah to the five-hundred-year history of Seyed Ahmad Kasravi—tens of historical books written by Persians, not Arabs, state that the name of this region was Arabistan because the majority of its people were Arabs. But those historians saw no contradiction between being Arab and being Iranian; as a result, they were fair. With the advent of Reza Khan's chauvinism and the rise of national oppression, sensitivity toward non-Persians grew, especially toward Arabs, which has historical and geographical roots that we don’t have time to delve into now. Therefore, we must critique the anti-Arab, anti-Turk, and anti-other rhetoric in Iran, whether it is in the works of Foroughi, Mahmoud Afshar, and Sadegh Hedayat, or in the works of Akhavan Sales, Jamalzadeh, and Zarrinkoub, or anyone else. If we don’t critique it, there will be no brotherhood. We cannot say, “My Arab compatriot, be my brother, but I will insult you, humiliate you in a thousand ways, change your name, say you cannot call Khorramshahr 'Muhammarah,' Susa 'Khafajiyah,' or Khuzestan 'Arabistan.' You cannot, because you are an animal; I, as a Persian, will name your places.” This discourse is wrong and does not foster unity.
Benitorof shared part of a poem written by Seyed Mahmoud Farrokh Khorasani, the founder of the Farrokh Literary Society. According to him, this poem was composed to condemn and insult the Arab people and their lineage.
"O Lord, may there be no Arabs and no land of Arabs / May this cursed border and its people lacking in manners cease to exist.
From this demon-like people and this demon-like land / Not a single person or an inch of land should remain green or thriving.
May this despicable, thieving, and beggar nation / Receive nothing but curses, torment, affliction, and divine wrath."
He then commented, "Look how a Persian poet addresses me, an Arab, in this way. He is the founder of a literary society and was a member of parliament during the reign of the Shah."
And what does Malek o-Sho'arā Bahar say? What does Ferdowsi say? 'Curses upon you, O turning heavens, curses upon you / From drinking camel's milk and eating lizards / The Arabs have now reached a point / Where they desire the throne of the Kianis / Curses upon you, O turning heavens, curses upon you.'
There is so much of this ugly, insulting, and inhumane language found in the works of Hedayat, Akhavan-Sales, and other racists and racial supremacists. Then you turn to the Arab and say, 'Come, be our fellow countryman. We insult you, write poems against you, demean you, spread hatred against you, don't allow you to name your children in Arabic, change the name of your cities, erase your identity, deny you the right to study or speak in your own language, but we'll take your oil.' Then what do you expect from the Arab?
Therefore, as someone who supports the unity of this land, my hope lies with democratic forces, leftist forces, and those whose human conscience has not yet been swayed by racism. My hope is in them."
At the end of Mr. Benitorof's speech, one of the audience members addressed him, stating that Ferdowsi did not mean the Arabs of Khuzestan. In response, Mr. Benitorof replied, "It doesn't matter whether the insult is directed at Arabs from Saudi Arabia or other countries; it's still an insult to Arab identity."
In the end, Mr. Zerehi thanked everyone for attending the panel and said, "We Iranians in Toronto have proven to be some of the most tolerant and democratic Iranians abroad. This discussion couldn't have taken place anywhere else outside the country." He also asked everyone to part ways with a smile.
Link to the original text: https://shahrvand.com/archives/12923