Akbar Karami – Radio Zamaneh – July 19, 2023
 |
| Akbar Karami, a general physician, writer, researcher on religious issues, and human rights activist. |
The Mother Tongue: A Language of Peace and Reconciliation
While “suffering in one’s mother tongue” (1) is an undeniable reality, reaching a point where the challenges of language are resolved in a future Iran cannot be easily or comfortably achieved from any vantage point. These challenges, whatever they may be and wherever they stem from, are intricately tied to our collective ignorance. As long as this ignorance persists, so too will the suffering—whether in the mother tongue or not. Unless and only unless, we take action and shoulder our share of these heavy burdens.
I am one of the Turkish-speaking Iranians who has become Persianized (born in 1967) and still carry the scars of the humiliation of the "mother tongue" and the pain it brings. Within me still lives a 5- or 6-year-old child who, in 1973, migrated from the colorful Caucasus of Iran (Fereydan, Isfahan) to the small city of Qom. In that small and confined body, I simultaneously bore the heavy burden of migration, marginalization, the shift from Turkish to Persian, education in a non-native language, poverty, and countless other deprivations. A child who was nearly crushed under the weight of adults' abundant ignorance and these overwhelming burdens, almost disappearing in the process. By sheer luck, that child survived to tell the tale of this ignorance, hoping that other children would not face these unnecessary and unkind transitions.
And yet, it would take immense ignorance on my part to turn these pains into a reason to produce and spread even greater suffering among Iranians—whether those who share my language or my sentiments. Unfortunately, this is exactly what some do in the ongoing debate over "mother tongue education" and "education in the mother tongue." Opponents deny the pain and the strategic importance of the mother tongue, while proponents not only exaggerate the pain but, at times, tell such disingenuous and overly dramatic tales that the broader and more critical issues are forgotten.
What Is the Greater Pain?
From the perspective of modern Iranian history and in my assessment, Iran's greatest affliction is underdevelopment. Various labels such as decline, despotism, tyranny, centralization, and forced nation-building are simply different names for the same issue. The "suffering in the mother tongue" and the deprivation from one's mother tongue merely expose a small portion of this misfortune.
However, if the linguistic challenges are reduced to political squabbles over the capabilities of various languages, without engaging in a deep and precise examination of this broader misfortune, not only will no progress be made, but the situation may worsen.
Language difficulties in Iran stem from the dispute over the "language of Iran." At its core, however, this conflict is not about Iran (or Iranians) and their interests; it is about the distribution of power, freedom, dignity, and other resources.
Reducing underdevelopment to language and its difficulties could pit Iranians against one another, potentially dragging us—and Iran—back not only to a pre-political state (a state of nature) but also to a pre-nation-state Iran. Rights related to the mother tongue and many other forgotten rights in this land are part of a broader cultural and traditional problem. Like every other affliction in Iran, they are tied to underdevelopment and the fragmented state of Iranian society, as well as its failure to transition from a society/culture to a polity. (3) This society suffers from incomplete civility and, instead of finding appropriate solutions to mitigate these pains and wounds, merely shifts burdens, shoulders, and scars from one place to another.
 |
| A representational image. — Thinkstock via TNS |
Language Challenges and Political Topology
A proper and nuanced understanding of language and its difficulties in Iran is tied to comprehending Iran's political geography and topology. The debate surrounding these issues is not merely about the relationship individuals have with their mother tongue. When people engage with the subject of language and its difficulties, they are simultaneously expressing their vision for Iran's future and the distribution of power, freedom, and dignity within it. This challenge is foundational to any community transitioning into a society: ultimately, all confrontations lead back to politics and the dynamics of power distribution and judgment.
In human communities, many similarities create homogeneity and uniformity within populations. As such, it is not surprising that most disputes in these populations transparently and directly pertain to power, judgment, and their distribution.
However, because of these similarities, disputes in such communities are often easier to resolve, as individuals draw from shared systems of power and judgment. As communities grow more complex and diverse, they gradually become less homogeneous, transforming into societies. This transition from community to society, however, is neither smooth nor easy; like any transition, it comes with unique challenges. During this process, as diversity and gaps between individuals and groups increase, various regimes of power and judgment emerge. Many disputes—ultimately related to the distribution of power, freedom, dignity, and so on—are restructured under different names and claims due to these growing differences.
In other words, conflicts over religion and language should be understood as part of the pathology of the transition from community to society, where struggles over the distribution of power, freedom, and dignity are reframed in new forms.
“Tell me where you stand in Iran’s political geography, and I will tell you your perspective on languages (or religions) and their challenges in Iran.”
Language Challenges in Iran
The difficulties surrounding language in Iran boil down to the dispute over the "language of Iran." The core of this conflict, however, is not truly about Iran (or Iranians) and their interests; rather, it is about the distribution of power, freedom, dignity, and other resources.
Participants in such disputes, being either underdeveloped themselves (lacking a deep understanding of the issues and their core) or reliant on exploiting less-developed groups and movements, often prefer to frame these old conflicts in new ways. This is why nationalists (centralists) and ethnicists (marginalists) line up against one another over the issue of language in Iran.
The machinery of power will craft any shield it can to protect itself. Sometimes this shield is religion, sometimes language, sometimes history, or any other small or large matter. Even sciences, rights, human rights, and laws are not immune to such exploitation.
Nationalists, emphasizing particular interpretations of history and national interests, elevate Persian beyond the realm of contestable issues. Ethnicists, on the other hand, focus on the many inequalities between the center and the periphery, portraying the dominance of Persian as a fundamental source of these inequalities.
Centralists and the Challenge of Language
Nationalists, as the main current of centralism, can be divided into Iran-centric and Iranian-centric groups. The Iran-centric faction prioritizes preserving Iran’s territorial integrity over distributing power, freedom, and dignity among its people. These individuals are gripped by a form of disintegration anxiety—a profound fear of Iran fragmenting into smaller units. This fear overshadows the gravity of linguistic challenges and the unequal distribution of power, freedom, and dignity, making these issues seem negligible in comparison. It’s unsurprising that they ultimately develop a fear of freedom, sacrificing the equitable distribution of power and dignity at the altar of territorial unity.
The Iranian-centric faction, fortunately, recognizes the fundamental and genuine problems plaguing contemporary Iran. They are prepared to negotiate a form of power-sharing that includes freedom, dignity, and even other sources of power, such as language.
Peripheralists and the Challenge of Language
Ethno-nationalists (a term they often reject, considering it reductive of their cause) can also be categorized into two groups: issue-focused ethno-nationalists and language-focused ethno-nationalists.
The former highlight the disparity between the center and the periphery, identifying language and its associated challenges as central to this imbalance. They argue that serious decentralization must begin by ending the dominance of the Persian language in Iran and among non-Persian-speaking communities. Conversely, language-focused ethno-nationalists elevate language as the centerpiece of their struggle, often using it as a password for returning to pre-political conditions and, at times, for advocating the disintegration of Iran.
Based on my interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I consider separatism, and even secession, as part of the right to self-determination. Consequently, I acknowledge this right for these movements within a democratic framework. However, I personally oppose the disintegration of Iran, seeing it as contrary to the national interests of Iranians. I also oppose opaque behavior and unclear claims. In other words, if these movements are indeed separatist, they should openly and loudly declare their goals and submit them to democratic scrutiny.
If we seek democracy and are earnest and profound in this pursuit, we must not shy away from discussions about linguistic rights and the right to mother-tongue education, or even the officialization of these languages in their respective regions within the framework of democratic balances and human rights norms. Defending these rights is akin to defending women’s rights and the rights of other vulnerable groups—it is a defense of democracy. To avoid a return to pre-national movements (which seek to revert the Iranian nation to a pre-nation/state condition) and ethnic chauvinism (which seeks to replace politics and governance with tribalism), we must be ready for dialogue and compromise.
Languages and the Illusion of Conspiracy
Many nationalist and centralist movements outright deny the existence of linguistic challenges in Iran, attributing them to the ignorance of pre-national movements. At times, they dismissively link everything to treachery and a plethora of conspiracies.
While there is evidence of regional forces meddling in these disputes, ignorance often plays a bigger role than any conspiracy—a phenomenon unfortunately prevalent on both sides of the conflict. This is significant because leaning on conspiracy theories to explain and diagnose these issues is both erroneous and dangerous. It is erroneous because it obscures the real suffering associated with mother-tongue suppression, and dangerous because it turns these grievances and divisions into crises and ruptures. It shuts down dialogue, erases opportunities for empathy, and undermines the foundations of compromise—an outcome far more perilous than any conspiracy.
Despite the distortions stemming from underdevelopment, linguistic challenges and their associated conflicts are fundamentally part of the democratic movement. Activists advocating for mother-tongue education and decentralization—even those with separatist tendencies—are all part of the broader resistance against tyranny and authoritarianism, seeking their share of power, justice, freedom, dignity, and other resources.
The Politics of Language and Power
The struggle over language in Iran, and even federalism, must be understood in its strategic and political context. Decisions about language, like federalism, are deeply tied to the distribution of power, freedom, dignity, and wealth. Those clinging to the "symptoms of the ignorant majority" may argue for the central role of Persian and anti-federalism to preserve national unity. However, these arguments, even when valid, ultimately reflect the majority's will rather than objective reasoning.
Recognizing the political nature of linguistic challenges does not justify demonizing all opponents of linguistic rights or federalism as Persian chauvinists or power-hungry oppressors. Instead, understanding these dynamics within the context of underdevelopment helps frame the broader issue of systemic inequities.
Mother Tongues as Languages of Peace
The mother tongue is inherently a language of peace and compromise. However, the debates surrounding it often lack the maternal essence of nurturing and reconciliation. While mother-tongue education addresses significant grievances, the broader context of underdevelopment and inequality transcends linguistic boundaries. Mothers, tragically, are often the first victims of these systemic failures.
Democracy and Linguistic Distribution
Democracy ultimately entails the distribution of power, freedom, justice, and resources. However, such distribution relies on the balance of power rather than the benevolence of those in authority. Similarly, achieving linguistic equity requires careful negotiation within democratic structures, ensuring that all voices are heard and respected without falling into divisive traps.
By fostering understanding, dialogue, and compromise, Iran can move beyond linguistic conflicts toward a more inclusive and democratic future.
The Political is Translingual
Our choices for the future of Iran, as well as the political realm itself, are not grounded in "what is" and cannot be resolved through reasoning or argumentation. The future and the political are rooted in "what ought to be" and hinge on our preferences, desires, and will—however mistaken they may be.
In other words, decision-making for the future in the public sphere is about the distribution of power and judgment, not the distribution of knowledge. Distributing power is a prerequisite for any reasoning. One cannot argue to deprive a group of citizens—those who disagree with you—of the right to judgment by claiming that their interests are better served by your proposals or even served more appropriately. Similarly, one cannot justify taking away someone’s freedom, power, or autonomy by saying, like Khomeini did, “We want to make you human, but you do not wish to become human.” Democracy and its framework fundamentally involve respecting the right of others to be "wrong" or "unjust."
Rationales, arguments, and reasoning (if they are genuine arguments) function as mechanisms for negotiation, significant in decision-making. However, during compromise, the right to err forms the foundation of power and freedom. No genuine compromise—at least not a sustainable and democratic one—can occur without the distribution of power, freedom, and the right to err. No reasoning can precede the distribution of the right to judgment and the right to err without being merely a decree. Under the shadow of domination by the "Great Other," reasoning becomes an extension of oppression. When the translingual language of power is in play, no other language holds sway.
A National Language is as Harmful as an Official Religion
I understand the necessity of having a consensual language for drafting laws, social contracts, and similar purposes in a country, even if it is federal. However, I find no substantial difference between an official religion and an official language.
At its core, the concept of a national and official language, like that of an official religion, is a hallmark of a naïve majority and can be profoundly damaging. It may exacerbate all the harms faced by a society with an official religion, transferring them to a society defined by an official language. Just as religion is a strategic matter, so are language, time, and space. They cannot be judged a priori or outside the realm of dynamic political negotiations.
Critics and opponents of such claims may undoubtedly have reasons and arguments for refuting or rejecting them. Even if all those reasons were accepted as correct without scrutiny, one still cannot justify the imposition of a national and official language. These reasons and arguments will change over time, as will the speakers, listeners, and their interests. Moreover, fundamentally, politics is not merely the continuation of history and the past—it is not meant to be. Politics and political practice involve creating the future, which inherently means breaking from the past and breathing fresh air. Politics is the act of dismantling the dreams of the past and its adherents, and constructing new dreams and preferences.
Political Compromises: Temporary and Revisable
Society is a public and diverse entity. If any language is placed outside the realm of conditional and temporary political compromises, or if any time period is fundamentally distinguished from others, or if a particular place becomes a central capital, the dynamics and balance of democracy will inevitably be disrupted, leading to domination by one group over others.
- (a) In the future of Iran and its legal texts, the proposal of an official language should, like an official religion, be entirely removed from the agenda of democratic movements. Any financial allocation by the government for the growth and expansion of a specific language contradicts the principle of governmental impartiality toward its citizens and can lead to challenges.
Investment in various languages should fundamentally be taken out of the hands of national and even local governments, placing it instead within the realm of civil society. Governments, legislatures, and authorities can make temporary decisions regarding their own communications, but they cannot legislate on languages permanently. Language decisions are inherently democratic matters and must remain open to future democratic adjustments. Governments must not, by intervening in linguistic diversity, pave the way for ethnic tensions to infiltrate society and the public sphere. Even the assertion that “mother tongue education, yes; education in the mother tongue, no!” is absurd, as it effectively leads to the gradual extinction of mother tongues in practice.
Some nationalists may rightly argue that the government’s resources for education in the mother tongue are very limited. However, even this realistic and truthful argument cannot lead to the conclusion that education in the mother tongue should be banned or deemed impossible. There are many other mechanisms and strategies to address these challenges.
(b) In Iran’s future legal texts, decisions regarding time, events, and temporal relationships must also not be finalized permanently, nor should alternative approaches be closed off to future generations. Such decisions, if necessary, must remain provisional, revisable, and open to democratic processes.
(c) In democracies, geography is also strategic. The distance of citizens from centers of power, as well as borders and geographic structures, plays a significant role in determining access to power, wealth, status, and other resources. Decentralization, embracing some form of federalism, and the possibility of adjusting borders through democratic compromises are essential. These necessities are rooted in democratic principles and, in the absence of strong political parties, can serve as safeguards for democracy in the future.
The argument that federalism and such claims may lead to Iran's disintegration, while not entirely baseless, is insufficient to justify curtailing freedom and the right to choose. If a majority succumbs to such raw and undemocratic arguments at the time of decision-making, it will also yield to other oppressive and freedom-restricting arguments. Fear of freedom, regardless of its destination or rationale, is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. Proponents of democracy in Iran must stand against fear of freedom in any form. In Iranian tradition, fear of freedom, regardless of its name or pretext, ultimately leads to tyranny and its resurgence in new forms.
- (d) In my view, the legal texts of Iran’s future must also humanely address the rights of migrants and refugees and ensure pathways to Iranian citizenship for them. Restricting citizenship rights to blood or even land is neither humane nor democratic. There must be a humane path to citizenship for migrants in Iran. Immigrant minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and prisoners, following animals and nature, are among the most vulnerable groups in any society. A society that does not take the defense of their rights seriously will also lack the capacity for collective self-preservation and the defense of its own rights.
Inequality and Toxic Politics
Without delving into the countless futile debates between nationalists and ethnicists—debates that are fundamentally rooted in underdevelopment and its corollary, ethnic fervor, often no more than sectarian disputes akin to those of Nemati and Heydari followers—and without underestimating the ignorance of the other side, I must candidly assert that nationalism, in general, is nothing more than a form of toxic politics. Nationalism fosters and is nourished by a "charismatic" form of power, ultimately incompatible with democracy and its principles. Nationalism is a gilded form of the tyranny of the ignorant majority.
What prevents many nationalists from perceiving the venomous nature of this mode of politics, which is liberally poured into the soul of society, lies within the toxic dynamic of history and their own relationship with it. A toxic relationship is not only encapsulated in the spread of violence (through the transformation of the oppressed into oppressors); it also alters our relationship with violence itself—our perception of it and our appropriate response to it. A toxic relationship reshapes how we understand power and freedom.
Will centralist movements and those who covet the dominance of the Persian language in tomorrow's Iran be willing to remove language from the realm of public disputes and avoid the cruelty of repeating history? This is a question clearly directed at the future. Yet similar questions have already been posed today, and their answers might shed light on this one as well:
Will the Islamic Republic of Iran and the proponents of political Islam in Iran agree to remove Islam (along with the privileges and exclusivities derived from it) from the public sphere?
We all know the answer is “no.” The Islamic Republic of Iran will not relinquish religion, Islam, or the associated privileges and exclusivities from the public sphere unless the balance of power in Iran shifts. This is because Islam and the grand lie of an "Islamic government" are the foundation of the ruling power’s legitimacy and dominance. How can one expect a structure to abandon the cornerstone of its legitimacy?
In this context, it becomes evident that centralists, nationalists, and supporters of the Persian language are also unlikely to readily relinquish the privileges and exclusivities derived from their dominance and preferred language. Tehran has now grown so large that it cannot easily be removed from any equation. Everything boils down to power and the balance of forces. Any other argument is futile.
Tell me in which language you suffer, and I will tell you what government and system you envision for Iran’s future. Tell me how far you are from Tehran, and I will tell you how far you are from power and freedom. Tell me how you plan to defend democracy in tomorrow’s Iran and what mechanisms you have devised for national self-governance, and I will tell you how you perceive power, freedom, and judgment. Tell me who you are, and I will tell you what you think of language and its challenges in Iran's future.
Recognize and discard superfluous rhetoric: language is always the language of power.