The Debacle of Iran

The Iranian revolution of 1979 was an event that fundamentally shaped not only the Iranian experience but also new discourses of religious militancy. Far from being a sudden outburst of radical, spontaneous action, the movement was informed by a long tradition of discomfort with the ‘arrival’ of the West in Iran. This ‘arrival’ was not only as a cultural and civilizational exchange but often took the form of neo-colonial intervention, both of which were perceived to be a threat to the fabric of the society by Khomeini and his movement. In 1921, the United Kingdom helped Reza Shah Pahlavi establish a monarchy in Iran. He was later pushed into exile and replaced by Mohammed Mossaddeq who acted as Prime Minister. In 1953, Mossaddeq nationalised the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil. This resulted in the UK and the US organizing a coup and doing away with Mossaddeq and bringing back the Shah. This, partly shows, how the anti-West discourses are shaped. It is fallacious to regard radical Islamic anti-West discourses as pure paranoia or merely as carefully crafted strategies by leading extremists. Instead it is best perceived as built on historical experiences of exploitation, subversion of self-determination and socio-economic and cultural assaults, all of which constitute the Western ‘arrival’ in the Middle Eastern countries.A consequence of this is that institutions of modernization areperceived to be Western products. Large-scale domination of the West over discourses of modernity, hugely shape such perceptions. The presence and ‘production’ of these institutions is seen to be inextricable from the crimes of the West. This is what happened in Iran, except for the clerical elite very strategically introducing Islam as the premise and ideological platform for the rejection of the West making sure they would be able to lead and shape the movement from the front.

After being reinstated, Reza Shah dissolved the Parliament and launched the White Revolution which was a heavy modernization programme. The conservatives saw this as a clear attack on traditional values. To add to the already ‘produced’ antipathy towards modernity, the regime stepped up socio-political repression in the 1970s. The modernization programmes did have positive economic impacts but the transformative effects on social norms and traditional institutions was not received well. This prompted a popular uprising which interestingly saw an alliance between the Ulama and the secular intellectuals. The movement included Left parties as well as the clerical elite. Due to its anti-imperialist propaganda, it was perceived as a democratic resistance against what appeared to be an authoritarian state. Individuals having a first-hand experience however could sense the direction in which the movement was heading. They warned the Left against its portrayal of conservative Islam as the resistance to the West. The movement gathered huge momentum in 1978 with workers’ strikes. In January 1979, the Shah fled the country.

This is a point in history which displayed the illusion and fallacy of populist movements with the mere aim of replacing an existing establishment. The ‘creativity of Islam’ argued for most prominently by Foucault was not self-sustaining. It had to be supported by the movement which it did not. In this aspect, it was not a revolutionary but a largely reactionary and restorative movement. Critics point out that the movement hailed by Foucault as the signifier of a glorious “political spirituality”, ushered in an era of a religious authoritarian regime. Khomeini, after coming back, declared Iran to be an Islamic Republic. By April 1, the left-wing and nationalist intellectuals were removed from all positions of power thereby reinforcing the extreme conservative nature of the regime. The freedom of women and their right to divorce were rolled back. The new Constitution that was passed created a religious government. The Iranian Revolution was the rare example of a ‘rightist’ revolution. The new regime, nevertheless, felt the need to maintain its image as an anti-Western entity. As a display of their radical intent, in November 1979, 66 people were taken hostage at the US Embassy by Iranian protestors.Foucault, however, was not completely wrong in his analysis of the uprising. It did herald the emergence of the discourse of militant Islam. Khomeini created ‘komitehs’ which were police bands built around the mosque who went around reinforcing traditional values and remove anything ‘un-Islamic’. It is not that militant extremist trends did not exist previously in the region but to systematically infuse it within the governmental technologies of the 20^th century was ‘revolutionary’. It can be argued that the current trends of the violent non-state actors like the Islamic State has inherited similar trends which they now posit as a fundamental challenge against the global empire.

SujatoDatta

Intern, AGA

All views expressed in this piece belong exclusively to the author.