[Reader-list] Iran Discussions on the Reader-List (I)

[shuddha at sarai.net]

Dear Junaid, 

Many thanks for your excellent rejoinders to my posting. I agree with much
of what you have said. But a few clarifications are in order. I hope I can
make sense while I write this, hurriedly. This is written in the spirit of
a general response to your remarks rather than as a detailed rejoinder.

I do not believe that Iran under the Shah was paradise. I think that the
Shah's regime represented the worst form of tyranny possible. Autocratic,
brutal, cynical, and totally alienated from the experiences of the majority
of the people. I have no regrets at all about the fact that the Shah of
Iran had to flee his domain. I wish he had fled much earlier.

I refuse however to believe that the hijacking of the Iranian revolution by
Ayatollah Khomeini and his camp followers represents a great step forward.
I think it was a great and tragic step backwards.  The Iranian revolution
of 1979 was not begun by the Mullahs of Qom, it was ended by them. If
anything, despite the rhetorical flourishes of the Khomeini dispensation, I
have absolutely no doubt about the fact that the Islamic Republic
represented an active counter-revolution. The deep structures of the
Iranian state as built up by the Shah, especially the dreaded SAVAK,
remained untouched, it just became the VEVAK. An elderly Iranian dissident
friend now living in Exile once spoke to me of the way in which the SAVAK
officers who had tailed them through the Shah years turned up again like
bad pennies, except that some of them now sported neatly trimmed beards.

The Iranian revolutionary upsurge of 1979 was in some ways short circuited
by the subsequent structures of the Islamic Republic, just as the
revolutionary upsurge of 1917 in Russia was to a large extent subverted by
the structures put in place by the Stalinist faction of the Bolshevik party
from the early to mid 1920s in Russia.

You speak of the referendum that called for the Islamic Republic, yet
neglect to mention that the entire 'Velayat-e-Faqih' system of governance,
which effectively imposed a clerical dictatorship under the masquerade of
republican democracy was introduced into the constitutional structures, not
through debate and discussion, but through a kind of sleight of hand,
subverting forever, thereby, any possibility that the Islamic Republic ever
had of acquiring the semblence of what even some believed naively to be the
beginnings of an 'Islamic Democracy'.

And no, the 'Guardians Council' and the 'Supreme Leader' put in place by
the 'Velayat e Faqih' are not toothless 'advisors'. They control the
military, the 'revolutionary guards', the all powerful intelligence
ministry, and the commanding heights of the economy - through the bonyads
or foundations. Which is why, the disastrous transformation of the
defensive measures into the 'offensive' war, that Khomeini decreed,
mirroring Saddam Hussain, which plunged Iran and Iraq further into the most
meaningless war of the middle east, overruling saner counsel even from
within his own regime.

One does not have to be beholden to Tsarism to be critical of Stalin, just
as one does not have to be a partisan of the Pahlevi dynasty to be critical
of the regime of the Islamic Republic. To suggest that this is the case is
to be disingenuous. And I know that you have no desire to be disingenuous.

However, the fact remains, that the land reform measures introduced during
the Shah's regime (and I have no doubt that they were introduced cynically)
did empower large sections of the rural population, to the extent that they
could stand up to his oppression. I have also no doubt about the fact that
some of these measures were sought to be reversed as 'un-Islamic' in the
Islamic Republic. An analogy closer to home might be useful here. The
CPI(M) led government of West Bengal did implement substantial land reform
in the period following 1977 (exactly as the Sheikh Abdullah dispensation
had done in Jammu and Kashmir in the 1950s). The same CPI(M) led government
sought to subvert the achivements of land reform with its disastrous
imaginations in Singur and Nandigram. It was the population that benefited
from land reforms that was able to stand up to, and resist  theoppression
of the CPI(M), in West Bengal. This does not mean that I think that the
CPI(M) in West Bengal (or for that matter, the National Conference in
Kashmir, which had once pursued a similar course) is a progressive force.
The fact is, both acted as transmitters and channels of popular sentiment
for a period, and took advantage of the same. The Shah of Iran, Indira
Gandhi, Mao Zedong, Stalin and Hitler did the same. This does not make me
endorse their politics. 

So, my criticism of the Khomeini-Khameini-Ahmadinejad formation cannot be
legitimately read as an endorsement of the Shah and the Pahlevi dynasty. 

I agree with you when you say that Iran is a normal country, it is not a
spectacular exception. Iran is like India, like the United States, like
France, like Israel, like Cuba. And precisely because we use a set of
standards to develop a critique of politics in these states, we have no
reason to abandon those criteria when it comes to Iran. Iran is a rich
country, much richer than India, and our awareness of what poverty means in
Iran has to be seen in the context of what poverty means in other
relatively well off countries. I think the sight of malnutrition and inner
city degradation in the United States is actually far more shocking than
the absolute indices of poverty in India, and for similar reasons, I am
convinced that the data relevant to Iran shows great reasons for concern.

But let me be clearer on what I mean as the refusal to toe  the line of an
'Iranian' exceptionalism. For example, i think the nuclear agendas of the
(successive) governments of Iran, Israel and India are equally worthy of
criticism, as are their abysmal human rights records.

The Israeli state's nuclear weapons programme is a far greater threat to
peace and stability in the middle east than Iran's, simply because it is at
a far more advanced state. Israel is an effectively weaponized nuclear
power, Iran is not yet one. So, I have no doubt at all that those (in the
US, India and elsewhere) who scream about the possibility of a
'nuclearized' Iran and ignore Israel, are guilty of the most profound
hypocrisy. Nor am I unaware of the fact that one of the longest standing
prisoners of conscience in the middle east is the Israeli engineer,
Mordechai Vanunu, who acted as a whistle-blower on the Israeli state's
nuclear agenda.

What I refuse to do is to make an exception of Iran, because it is Iran.
Exactly as I refuse to make an exception of India, or for that matter of
Israel (as many people, both on the right, and some on the left do, on the
grounds that to criticize the policies of the State of Israel is to fall
lapse into anti-semitism - I have no such illusions). If Golda Meir said
'There are no Palestinians' or if Sardar Patel expressed downright racist
sentiments about the people of the North East in India, or if Ahmadinejad
doubts the nature and reality of the Shoah, then each of these are equally
worthy of condemnation on the grounds of their inherent and implicit racial
prejudice. 

As for Ahmadinejad's 'anti-semitism', i am not one of those who deduce it
from his repetition of the grandiose sentiments of Ayatollah Khomeini
(about 'effacing the regime that occupies Jerusalem from the pages of
time') which has been mistranslated, as you correctly point out, as 'wiping
Israel off the map'. Rather, my understanding of Ahmadinejad's
anti-semitism has to do with his systematic 'holocaust denial' to bolster
which, he has no hesitation in organizing international conferences with
revisionist neo-nazi 'historians' and Klu Klux Klan eminences.

I totally agree with you that to speak of the death of Neda Agha Soltan,
and to remain silent, about the death of Sheik Aziz in Kashmir, is
hypocrisy. But, unfortunately, (or fortunately) that is not a charge that
can be levelled at my door. I remember writing about the killing of Sheik
Abdul Aziz on this list (and much else besides) and elsewhere. So, I am not
exactly the kind of person who focuses on Iran in order to avoid looking
closely at what goes on closer to home.

I have no doubt at all that much of those who are willing to shed tears for
Iran are happily content to look away when it comes to what happens in
Palestine or in Kashmir. But precisely because of this, we, who are acutely
aware of what happens in Palestine or in Kashmir, and speak of it openly,
must not be silent when it comes to Iran. To do would be to mirror the
hypocrisy of the generations of Indian communists who would use every
occasion to remind you of the oppression of workers in the west, and choose
to remain silent about the repression of workers in (then) Poland, or for
that matter, the USSR.

I will write in greater detail later, especially on the role of religion in
the Iranian revolution. But meanwhile, I wanted to quicly begin to address
some of the other questions you have raised. I am not, as you know, an
Indian nationalist by any means, I do however, recognize the difference
between the utter two facedness of the elites of states like Pakistan,
Nigeria and Iran, and large sections of what gets loosely described as the
Indian middle classes. I have observed, over many years, the utter and
insulated indifference that many (not all) of my Pakistani peers have had
towards their own milieu and society. The tears that they shed over what
happens as a result of the Indian occupation of Kashmir are meaningless,
because  they are happy to benefit, when necessary, from their feudal
contempt of the large masses of the Pakistani population, with whom, they
have nothing in common. They do not care for the way Balochistan is
pillaged, or the wretchedness that prevails in the interiors of Sindh

And, while I have remained the harshest critic of the Indian nation state's
actions, I also know that there is a difference between a class that has
fattened itself and its ambitions over successive long periods of a
ruthlessly sustained military dictatorship (as has happened in Pakistan)
and the way things have developed, over the decades, in India. The
lethargy, the utter disconnectedness, the feudal non-chalance of the thin
wedge of the Pakistani upper middle classes, with which I have more than a
passing familiarity,

I know, for a fact, that no greater tragedy can befall the people of
Kashmir, than having their servitude transferred from Indian to Pakistani
chains.

This is not to exonerate or endorse or praise the Indian middle class,( i
would not even dream of doing so) just to acknowledge, that the structures
that govern India today have less need for a day to day level of hypocrisy
and two facedness on the part of the vague category called the Middle Class
Indian. In India, we do not hide our whisky much, not anymore, in Iran, the
alchoholic Mullahs who pretend to be teetotallers, do. They sip their
chosen brew from stainless steel decanters, or behind locked doors, or run
enormous bootlegging operations from the security of their enormous villas.

This does not mean that people in India are better or worse, it just means
that they have less reason to be opaque on several counts. The inordinate
propensity to consume large amounts of bad whisky being only one of them. 

Finally , let me end on a personal note. I actually have a deep and abiding
engagement with Iran. The problem is not that I 'hate' Iran, but that
maybe, that I am much too concerned about it for my own good. Because I
feel close to the historical experiences and the cultural circumstances of
the Iranian people. That is why I 'hate' Ahmadinejad, and have always felt
the deepest rage when I think of Khomeini, of the Shah of Iran (and yes, i
think Natanyahu should also be tried as a war criminal) This sentiment, for
whatever it is worth, is not different from my utter contempt, hatred and
anger with regard to the legacies of Stalin or Mao. 

As a person who identifies with the left, I have a much greater intensity
of hatred for Stalin and Mao than someone who has notionally nothing to do
with the left. I feel that Stalinism violates me, because I identify with
the left. For very similar reasons, because of my affinity with Iran, the
regime of the Islamic Republic is anathema to me. I wish to see the Islamic
Republic destroyed, just as I wish to see Zionism made irrelevant and
meaningless, because I want to believe in a future worth fighting for, for
my friends who are Iranian, Israeli and Palestinian, and for their
children. And for the same reasons, for the sake of your future and mine, I
want both Indian and Kashmiri nationalisms to be recognized as being the
mediocre, moth-eaten expressions of our common (yet divergent) servitude.
If you get rid of the chains of the Indian occupation, we know that it will
(in some ways) liberate us as well. 

I believe that those of us who are critical of empire and domination, must
be even more vigilant of the charlatans who sometimes mimic our own
 anxieties. We cannot afford to let them down.That is why, for me, being
critical of George Bush entails a rigorous rejection of the rhetoric of
Ahmadinejad and Chavez. That is why, being militantly opposed to the Indian
occupation of Kashmir, also, for me, entails a total and absolute rejection
of the reactionary politics of Kashmiri nationalism as it is represented by
Syed Ali Shah Geelani. I have no hesitation on being categorical on these
issues. One position, in my opinion, demands the other. 

warm regards, and, as ever, in solidarity

Shuddha



On 1:37 am 07/17/09 Junaid <justjunaid at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Shuddha,
>
> Thank you for the informative post on Iran. In that short post you
> have managed well to marshal together many facts and figures to
> support your well-argued conclusions. You have also summarized nicely
> the main issues that have emerged from the debates here so far. But as
> we said earlier, our differences on Iran shall remain, mostly on
> issues of how to interpret “facts,” the perspectives through which one
> sees Iran, and not least of all on how Iran is a perfect example of “a
> discourse” which to an incredible level has lost its bearing in
> reality.
>