|
|
Article3
Response
To Article2
By
Sam Ghandchi
Here is
ghandchi’s first response to CCC:
*************************************************************
Please
note that the "S" indicates my original postings and the
"C"
shows
CCC’s comments:
S)
.....Iranians have buried so many of their brightest intellectuals in
S) mass
graves in the last century, without even achieving half of
S) what
some nations such as
S) Why?
I think because of sensational assessments of the world and
S) our
society; and replacing brevity and fearlessness contests for
S)
reason.
C) But
isn't this a bit simplistic? Lets see... :
It may
not be detailed, but I do not think my assessment is
simplistic. I am presenting a new angle in my whole
posting and my
angle
is to view our history from the viewpoint of someone who
thinks
everyone has had choices; and has made right and wrong
choices;
rather than seeing things as inevitable.
In
other words, according to my viewpoint, one had the choice to act
like
Amir Kabir or Mirza Reza Kermani under the same dictatorial
rule. Some people chose the former option and some
others chose
the
latter, and the choices they made were not inevitable. They
could
have done the reverse. This is all I am
trying to convey. I
agree
that to cover what I have tried to cover, I would need to write
a book
and not a short article [Sorry SCI friends, I know, it was not
even
short.!!!:).].
I also
agree with someone, who in an Email corrected me, that it was
not
just two tendencies of sensationalism and rationalism. She did
correctly
disagree with my dichotomous/binary referencing. I
agree
with her, and I also prefer a pluralistic analysis.
But
here I am just referring to the sensationalist extremism in our
history. I know none of our historians make such an
allegation, but I
believe
there is a major tilt towards sensationalism in our history. I
accept
that I have not given enough arguments to substantiate this
view in
every juncture of our modern history and definitely a lot
more
work is needed. But I am trying and I
need your help to add
your
research to prove or disprove this theory:
In my
opinion, the number of individuals, who chose the rationalist
path in
our modern history is very small: Amir Kabir, Kasravi, Arani,
and
Dehkhoda. The liberal tradition, even
before 1953 coup, was
extremely
weak. Even in that period, it was rather
Mossadegh as an
individual,
and not Jebheh Melli as a party. It is
noteworthy to say
that
unfortunately Jebh-e Melli had more emphasis on nationalism
than on
liberalism and individual rights. Also
needless to say that
Jebh-e
Melli never grew to be a real party.
The
only party of significance in our history was Tudeh Party, as a
party,
and that was neither rationalist nor liberal.
It was not even
communist. Kianoori and Ghasemi were adventurists long
before
guerrilla
movement. And I classify them more with
the
sensationalist
tendency of our intellectuals in modern times, rather
than
the rationalist tradition.
Actually
there have been communist parties in many countries that
symbolized
rationalism, for example, The Communist Party of
rationalism. Kasravi or Dehkhoda by themselves researched
and
wrote
more works of research than the whole of Tudeh Party, during
the
1941-1953 period when they did not have much of the Russian
literary
assistance.
And
after the coup, Tudeh Party never existed in
remnants
of Sasmaneh Afsari did a lot of couragous sacrifices, but
the
Central Committee was busy in its plenums abroad. As for
rationalism,
especially after 1963 defeat of Jebh-e and Tudeh
remnants,
as you noted, rationalism drastically went down hill in
favor
of sensationalism. People like Bazargan
and Sanjabi in 1979
were
actually remnants of the 1941-1953 period and were not
the
products of the post-1953 period.
The
post-coup period never created any major new liberal figure in
our
political scene. Again I am not
discerning the differences in the
rationalist
and liberalist development patterns. I
am only referring
to
growth of sensationlism, which prohibited the growth of the
former
tendencies.
Thus,
as you see, I am not considering just the Cheriki and Shariati
movements
as sensationalism. I see the shadow of
sensationalism in
most of
our modern history. I agree that my
analysis is very
different
from old assessments, which state the liberals’ failure
before
the 15th of Khordad, as the reason for the start of radical left
and of
the Islamic movement in Iran.
In my
opinion, in the opposite way (Please note that the issue is not
just
the dates. The issue may sound like
chicken and egg, but it
makes a
big difference) , the climax of sensationalism in the post-
1963,
actually killed liberalism for good; and this is why it did not
exist,
except for the Jebh-e Melli ghosts of the past at the dawn of
the
1979 revolution.
Even
one year after the Islamic Revolution, when Sanjabi had an
open to
public press conference, following his resignation from
Bazargan
government near Meydan Enghelab at Jebhe's garden,
only
less than 200 people showed up; which was pathetic,
considering
the freedom of assembly at the time.
C)
While I quite agree that the lack of liberal tradition in Iranian
C)
politics has been a major factor in the growth of violence and/or
C)
mystical/religious oriented groupings during the 10-15 years
C)
before the revolution, I found your analysis of the reasons for the
C)
first rather simplistic. Furthermore, classifying intellectuals as if
C) they
are a homogeneous political groupings and then blaming
C) them
for whatever happened to Iran in this (and some other)
C)
periods is bordering on naivetŽ. This sort of "analysis" is used
C)
universally by many opposing groups: the monarchist blame
C)
intellectuals for the revolution, the mollah's blame them for
C)
keeping the Shah in power for the period he was in power, and
C) many
people on the left also doing the same.
I
really reviewed my writing to see why you consider my analysis as
simplistic. Maybe to write the Iranian modern history
from a new
angle
cannot be done in a short essay and you are right. But I cannot
accept
it that all I have written should be marked as a simplistic
so-called
"analysis" used by monarchists, mollahs, leftists, etc.
I
actually do not mind if anybody with any
political tendency uses
the
same analysis. But I still think that my
approach can be fruitful.
Maybe
we can *rethink* our modern history and see if we may solve
some of
our problems better this way.
I am
just trying to view the history not as "COULD NOT" and "WOULD
NOT". I am trying to say that we are not pawns in a
big movement of
a
historical machine. I am tired of
Hegelian models of looking at
history
as inevitable spirals. I do not believe
in any historicism. I
actually
like philosophies like Karl Popper’s philospohy, which
opposes
historicism.
BTW, I
know intellectuals are not one pack, but I cannot understand
why you
think my analysis of their general tendency towards
sensationalism;
and their role in the defeat of liberalism in Iran, is
bordering
on naivete.
I could
use Alvin Gouldner's analysis and differentiate the
intelligensia,
etc. and give a more detailed anlysis of different
groupings
of intellectuals and their role. But all
I wanted to note
here
was that the majority of Iranian intellectuals overwhelmingly
sided
with the sensationalist tendecy rather than the rationalism and
liberalism,
and I did not need a breakdown.
IMHO
the intellectuals of Iran in the last century have had many
choices
to make. A few like Amir Kabir worked
for reason and
liberalism
(I know reason and liberalsim are not equal); and they
still
lost their life; and many like Koochek Khan, Heydar Amoghli, and
Mirza
Reza Kermani did not have the time for liberalism. I wish
more of
our intellectuals had taken the former path than the latter. I
think,
if they had, Iranian society would have benefited more.
I know
about the world situation and historical facts, etc. But I still
believe,
the more educated you are, the more responsible you are for
the
decisions you make; and one cannot just blame everything on
historical
trends.
C)
....The Bazargan government was liberal only in name: it could not
C) and
would not defend and safeguard the most basic human rights
Why do
you say COULD NOT and WOULD NOT as if things are pre-
determined. We have choices even under the worst
conditions. Why
not
just say what things Bazargan did right; and what he did wrong.
Can't we
criticize our politicians the same way as Americans do. To
say
what right choices they made, and what wrong choices they
made
and voice our support and our dismay.
C)
against the onslaught of the reactionary mollahs. It was ready to
C)
compromise anything for power (unlike Mossaddegh who would
C)
stand against the Shah whenever matters of principle were at
C)
stake. And true, the radical left (both Islamic and Marxist) had no
C) time
and place for such "luxuries" as human rights in their agenda,
C) either.
C) It
looks as if the Iranian people have had no choice but to go
C)
through "trial and error".
I
appreciate your agreement that Islamic and Left radicals did not
have
time for "human rights".
But why
do you say, we had no choice but trial and error. I
understand
that you mean it in a historical perspective, but let's just
drop
this way of looking at history for a moment.
Don't you think
one,
who has brain, can think and is responsible for making good and
bad
choices. Actually Mossadegh also made
many wrong choices as
well. I am sorry I just do not see history as
Hegelian spirals, and I
feel
the Iranian people had other choices than just going thru this
pendulum
of trial and errors that you sketch below.
I just do not
believe
in historical necessities.
C) They
tried liberalism (in the shape of Mossaddegh government)
C) and
failed by the coup. They tried violence in the
C)
sixties/seventies. That failed too as all these movements were
C) crushed
by the might of SAVAK torture machines. They then
C)
turned to religious salvation - and got the IRI with all its
C)
barbarism, devastation and regressive records. The signs are that
C) this
latest experience is leading many back to liberalism again -
C)with
a difference. The political changes both inside and outside
C) Iran
have created a more favorable conditions for the growth of
C)
liberalism. One can easily witness that the argument for violence
C) and
extremism is losing ground in the Iranian politics, and the
C)
forces of reason and secularism/liberalism are gaining grounds.
C) What
it lacks is a political leadership to turn this new
C)
sentimentality into a political force and affect changes for the
C)
betterment of the society.
I am
sorry to be very rough in my response. I
actually value your
note a
lot. I think you helped me to review the
different periods of
our
history for myself. You also have helped
me to understand my
shortcomings
in attempting to rethink our history and specifying the
dates. Actually the same issues that I am
criticizing you about,
namely
historicism, etc., are unconsciously on
my mind as well.
I have
been brought up in the same intellectual atmosphere of Iran
of the
last quarter century; and I am trying to re-understand our
situation
because many of the answers I used to give to the dilemma,
that
were no longer satisfactory to myself either and I started to
*rethink*
my approach in reviewing our history. I
think, perhaps,
you may
also feel the same way when reviewing our modern history.
Actually
I think whether Muslim, secular, leftist, rightist, futurist,
whatever
we may be, we all share many similar approaches in our
way of
analyzing our history which is not really helping us to make
better choices. I do not think that I have the answer. I am also not a
historian. But I hope to see more history books with
fresh
perspectives. I am tired of reading Petroshevski's
inevitability
theories
fixed on Iranian history.
I once
went to a firewalking seminar with Tony Robins in San
Francisco
vicinity. I was able to walk on fire
after learning to control
my mind
and the choices I had made. He had one
good advice in his
6-hour
presentation. He said that early on he
learned to read the
books
that successful people read, do the things they did, etc. He
tried
to teach how to always be aware of making choices. His book is
called
UNLIMITED POWER. BTW, many people think
he is a
charlatan. I do not know. But his lecture program was useful for me.
Regards,
- Sam
Ghandchi
Feb 26,
1994