Politicising Iranian History Obstructs Meaningful Discussion About our Past

I am grateful to Mahmoud Delkhasteh for having taken the time to read and more importantly comment on my interview on Reza Shah. A critique is always useful in allowing a writer to refine, clarify and occasionally correct misperceptions and inaccuracies, and there is no doubt in my mind that a constructive intellectual dialogue is part and parcel of the process of scholarship. It is however a matter of some disappointment for me that Mahmoud has resorted to polemic in his criticism of me and has politicized what should be a historical discussion.

In the first place, Mahmoud has described me as an apologist for dictatorship/despotism. Even on the basis of this interview alone, this would be an absurd statement to make. It is beyond credulity when considered in the context of my other publications on the Islamic Republic, or indeed my most recent book, the ‘Politics of Nationalism in Modern Iran’. Mahmoud might find himself a little embarrassed if and when he does get round to reading  this book in particular.

The purpose of this outline of Reza Shah’s rule is to explain not to justify and it would appear that Mahmoud has completely omitted to read the final paragraph in which I state quite clearly the dangers of Iranian harking to the past when they should face the future. Mahmoud’s discussions of the nature of power and his digressions into Syria, Egypt and the election of Rouhani are really beyond the scope of this interview and are as far as I can see, are purely personal speculations.

On the particular points raised let me be clear that nowhere do I justify the dress laws. What I have tried to do is to look at the various reforms from the context of the period rather than provide a retrospective political judgement. I do not like the term pseudo applied to much at all and therefore in answer to that particular question argue that modernisers and reformers regarded dress reform (among many other things) as one important aspect of modernisation and while there may have been disagreement over the precise means the reality is that few members of the intellectual elite regarded this as unusual any more than they regarded the settlement of the tribes as anything but essential for the progress of the country. We can criticise the methods now but it shows a lack of historical method, to apply our morality and world view to a different age. The point about Japan is not so much the means by which they Westernised but the fact that they were perceived to have done so to an extraordinary degree and had the success to prove it - most obviously the defeat of Russia in 1905.

The reference to Peter the Great was made by Taqizadeh in the journal Kaveh and reflected a growing view that what Iran needed was a period of ‘enlightened despotism’ to shatter the bonds of traditionalism and catapult the country towards modernisation. There is a valid debate to be had over the rights or wrongs of this view but I raise it because it reflected a view among Constitutionalists who felt the Constitutional Movement had faltered, not because the ideas were wrong but because they were too ambitious. Put simply, how do you limit a government, when you have no government? You have to build your institutions before you can limit them. And this was why they initially at least, placed their support behind Reza Khan/Shah. (This is of course all in the original interview).

On Reza Khan’s rise from obscurity, Mahmoud is following a narrative, shared by the left and members of the Islamic Republic, that he was brought in by the British. With Britain the most powerful player in Iran after the First World War, it would have been difficult for them not to have played some sort of role, but the evidence does not point to them having engineered it (Fardoust - the source quite by Mahmoud, is not a reliable source in this regard). In fact Norman, the British minister in Tehran at the time made this clear in a letter to Lord Curzon dated 1st March 1921. A significant and interesting passage from this letter is reproduced below:

"The situation presents two embarrassing features. The first is the belief, universal among the Persians and very general among Europeans, that the movement was organised and has been supported by this legation and by the British military authorities at Kazvin. No denials or protestations on my part have hitherto had the slightest effect in dispelling this belief, which is, of course, entirely unfounded ... The Cossacks themselves have unluckily strengthened the prevailing impression by boasting that they had British support. I can only account for their assertions by supposing that their leaders must have told them so in order that they might be encouraged in their enterprise by the feeling that they had a force behind them ready to help them if necessary. The other embarrassing feature is the imprisonment of prominent Persians universally known as friends of Great Britain..."

The other development of course is that the coup government subsequently abrogated to the Anglo-Persian Agreement, much to Curzon’s fury and frustration. There is also as I have outlined both in this interview and the book sufficient evidence of an Iranian genesis to the coup of 1921.

As to his wealth, I do not dispute his extensive acquisition of land nor the wealth accrued to the dynasty, though I am always cautious about figures provided by his opposition - of which there were of course many. The sum quoted, is an estimate provided by the Daily Telegraph in 1944 following his death in South Africa, and refers to his personal and moveable wealth, not the wealth in situ that would have been inherited by his son. This is a sum quoted by other historians. There was no reason for the British to have provided an artificially low figure at this stage, especially when they had been party to his overthrow. The source I have used states that his estimated wealth in 1941, on the eve of exile, was 68m tumans and 5200 parcels of land.The sources quoted by Mahmoud are by and large secondary sources published in the post Revolutionary period when every attempt has been made to diminish and decry Reza Shah. I cannot attest to their reliability and to be honest I have never seen figures of the type quoted by Mahmoud in relation to capital sent abroad. However, it also depends on whether he means average annual income or wealth. If he means 700 million rials, then this accords with the 68m tumans cited above, it would also make sense in terms of the 10% he subsequently says was sent abroad. The newspaper cited is certainly contemporary but I would want to see where they got their information and what political points they sought to make. I cannot comment on whether he became one of the richest men in the world since I can make no comparison but it would seem incongruous that he had such a thriving income if his estates were run as badly as Mahmoud says. That said I am more than happy to stand corrected on this point if reliable evidence can be provided.

Finally, and to reiterate a point I made earlier. I feel strongly that Iranians need to discuss their history dispassionately and as far as possible divested from politics. The politicisation of Iranian history has been one of the greatest obstacles to meaningful discussion about our past. our present and of course our future. The use of polemics and personal abuse is neither helpful nor conducive to furthering our understanding of Iranian history, to which I hope we all aspire, and towards which I hope my own work has made a modest contribution.

Ali M Ansari

University of St Andrews