| Azerbaijanis have always been vigorously active in the political, cultural,
linguistic, and commercial domains of Persia. Turkish, spoken by the majority of Iran’s Azerbaijani populace, is one of the many languages
of Iran’s multi-ethnic populace. Turkish can be heard not only in Tabriz, but in many rural and metropolitan parts of
Iran, especially in Tehran.
In my visit to Tehran a few years ago, I recall the cab driver asking me
what music I wanted to hear in his car: “Sir are you in the mood for Turkish music?...I
also have the latest from Ercan from Istanbul…or are you in the mood for Persian? On that note,
how about some Luri or Kurdish?”
This tiny example neatly encapsulates what Persia has always been about since its founding by Cyrus
the great. Persia is not confined by linear conceptions such as “race”, “language” or even
“culture”. An Iranian can just as easily be speaking Arabic in Khuzistan,
Baluchi in Zahedan, or Turkish in Maragheh. It is this Persia that certain opportunistic and naďve individuals
and organizations believe they can destroy, and the main tool they
have been using is “language and cultural rights” (Part VI, item 10).
There is a distinction between legitimate rights (e.g. language, cultural
expression, theology, etc.) versus entities who deceptively appropriate
these “rights” to mask a divisive and potentially violent agenda.
The pan-Turanian theories discussed in Part I represent only a part of
the picture. There is a whole set of beliefs being narrated about
Iranian Azerbaijan in both the Republic
of Azerbaijan and the Turkish Republic. They are using the Turkish language
as an instrument to differentiate Iranian Turcophones from the rest
of Iran. Some of the pan-Turanian claims to Iranian Azerbaijan
can be summarized into the following:
(1) Greater
Azerbaijan was divided between Russia and Persia.
(2) Azerbaijanis have spoken Turkish since the advent of History.
(3) Turks have
been in the Caucasus for over 5000 Years.
(4) The Safavid
Empire was Turkish.
(5) Sattar Khan was a pan-Turanian separatist.
(6) Babak Khorramdin was a Turk who fought against Persia.
(7) Azerbaijanis
and all who speak Turkish are Turkish by race.
Before
discussing these items, an important point must be revisited. Pan-Turanian claims to Azerbaijan are supported by a very
powerful western lobby in the form of multinational and geopolitical petroleum
interests. These
hope to access and dominate the lucrative oil bonanza looming in the
energy deposits of the Caucasus and Central Asia
(see Part VI, items 1-3).
(1) Greater Azerbaijan was divided between Russia and Persia.
This
is the belief that there was an independent kingdom by the name of
“Azerbaijan” (encompassing Arran and Iranian Azerbaijan). This “kingdom” is then claimed to have been
partitioned between Qajar Iran and
Tsarist Russia in the treaties of Golestan (1813) and Turkemenchai
(1827); leading to the creation of a Russian occupied North Azerbaijan and Iranian occupied
South Azerbaijan. This account is a fictional narrative at best, and a gross distortion
of historical events.
(a) Arran & the Historical Azerbaijan. The first recorded reference to Azerbaijan can be traced to Aturpat
[i]
, the local Iranian commander of the region at the
time of Alexander the Great’s conquest of Persia in 333 BC. Aturpat is Old Persian for “guardian/keeper” (pat/bad)
of the “fire” (Atur)
[ii]
. The region of Aturpat, was known in Old Persian
as Aturpatkan
[iii]
(“The place of the Guardian/keeper of the fire”).
The region was known as such until the Arab conquests of Persia in
the 7th century AD
[iv]
. After the battle of Nahavand, the Arabs broke
through the Malayir plains of northwest Iran in 642 AD and into Aturpatkan. The region was henceforth referred
to by its Arabic pronunciation, Azerbaijan.
Historical
sources have clearly delineated the historical Azerbaijan as having been situated between the Daylamites of Northern Persia
to their east, with the Araxes River as its northernmost limit. The region north/northeast
of the Araxes River was known as Arran. This region was variously known as Ardan by the Parthians, as well
as Alban/Albania as per the Caucasian designation. Armenian historians
cite the region north of the Araxes as “Agvan”, “Agvanak”, “Alvan” or “Alvanak”. The region above the
Araxes River has never
been known as “Azerbaijan”. Professors Touraj Atabaki
and Jalal Matini (see References)
have listed numerous primary historical sources that provide indisputable
evidence of the clear delineation
between Arran/Albania and the historical Azerbaijan in Iran. A handful of these include:
Strabo (64/63 BC-23
AD): Cites the people of Iranian Azerbaijan (known as Media Atropatene
at the time of Strabo) as Iranians and with Persian as their language
[v]
. The “Persian” cited by Strabo would have most
likely been of the Parthian Pahlavi variety at the time.
Arrian (92-c. 175
AD): The region north of the Araxes River is cited as “Albania”
and south of the Araxes as “Media Atropatene”.
The Hodud-ol-Alam Text (10th century AD): Cites the Araxes River as the
northern limit of Azerbaijan.
Ibn-Hawqal: Cites
the Araxes River as the southern limit of Arran.
Al-Muqaddasi (10th
Century AD): Divided Persia into eight regions which include both
Azerbaijan and Arran. Defines Arran as being situated between the Caspian
Sea and the Araxes River.
Yaqut Al-Hamavi (13th
Century AD): Defines Arran and Azerbaijan as distinct territories with the Araxes River forming
the boundary between them. Arran defined as north and west of the Araxes, with Azerbaijan to the south of the River.
Borhan-e-Qate (Completed
1632 AD): Aras (Araxes) defined as a river flowing past Tbilisi in Georgia
and forming the boundary between Arran and Azerbaijan.
Sassanian
emperor, Shapur I (r. 241-270 AD), cited Albania
and Media Atropatene as two separate provinces of the Persian Empire. Professor Mark Whittow’s map of Oxford University (see
references – see also item 6) clearly shows the historically attested
distinction between ancient Arran/Albania and the original Azerbaijan in Iran (see below):
Arran
Note
how the Araxes River separates
Arran from the historical Azerbaijan (in Iran). It is interesting that virtually no maps such as these are ever
discussed by pan-Turanian activists (and their western supporters)
seeking to incite anti-Persian sentiments among Iranian Azerbaijanis.
Even less acknowledged is the strong
Armenian presence in historical Albania/Arran, especially west of the River Kur/Kura.
(b) The Musavats and the early Pan-Turanianists. The Islamic Democratic Musavat Party (IDMP) was established in the
city of Baku in Arran in 1911
[vi]
. Although nominally a pan-Islamic movement for
the Caucasus, the IDMP was in fact a pan-Turanian movement with an Islamic flavour.
The IDMP wanted to use Islam to target Turkish speakers of the Caucasus (Arran in particular) and Azerbaijan in Iran
[vii]
. In practice, the Musavats
catered to the pan-Turanian elements of the Ottoman Empire
[viii]
who endeavoured to create a Turkish super-state stretching from Central Asia to the Aegean Sea
[ix]
.
The collapse
of the Czarist Russian Empire by 1917 was the catalyst for the breaking
away of many of Russia’s conquests of former Persian territory in the Caucasus. This resulted in the
Musavats solidifying their ties to The
Turkish Federalist Party in the Ottoman
Empire by June 1917
[x]
. By November 1917, the first Musavat congress was
inaugurated in the Caucasus (Arran?), after which the party
was renamed as the Turkish
Democratic Musavat Party (TDMP)
[xi]
. The full tilt of the Musavat party to pan-Turanianism
was now evident.
By April 22, 1918, a political coalition
of Mensheviks (Georgians), Dashnakists (Armenians) and TDMP (Turkish
speaking as well some non-Turkish Muslims from the Caucasus), officially proclaimed the inauguration of the Transcaucasian Federative Republic. However
on 26
May 1918, the Republic was dissolved
with the Georgian Mensheviks proclaiming their own republic on the
same day, with the Armenian Dashnakists doing the same two days later.
The TDMP met on May 27 1918 in Tbilisi and selected
the name of “Azerbaijan”, rather than Albania
or Arran,
as the title of their new “Independent
Republic of Azerbaijan” (IRA)
[xii]
. The main proponents of this name change were local
Turkish and non-Turkish Muslim elites
[xiii]
as well as Ottoman pan-Turanian activists
[xiv]
, many of them Ottoman officers who had recently
fought against the Russians in the Caucasus with success
[xv]
(see photo of Ottoman officers campaigning in the
Caucasus in World War One – see Nicolle in references).
Musavat
It is
worth noting that Nuri Pashi, a brother of Enver Pasha, also volunteered
and fought against the Imperial Russians in the Caucasus during the First World War.
The main
objective of “borrowing” Azerbaijan’s name and applying it to Arran was to create the illusion
of a formerly “united” Azerbaijan that was divided in two
by Persia and Russia. As the majority of the inhabitants of Arran and Azerbaijan speak Turkish and have family ties in both regions, the fiction of
an “independent state” that was “divided” rapidly gained hold in former
Arran.
The pan-Turanian
activists first applied the name of Iran’s Azerbaijan to a former Iranian province (Arran) then proposed to annex the real Azerbaijan (in Iran) into their newly born republic
[xvi]
. Even more amazing is how quickly the pan-Turanian
ideologues of the Musavats began to believe their own propaganda.
One example is Nasib Bey Ussubekov (a Musavat activist and one of the leaders of
the republic in 1918) who made it clear that he regarded Iranian Azerbaijan
as a part of the newly invented “Independent
Republic of Azerbaijan”.
Czarist
and Soviet Russia did much to advance the cause pan-Turanianism, a
fact undoubtedly rejected by pan-Turanian and Russian scholars alike.
Despite the fact that the Russians and Turks have fought several long
and bloody wars against each other in history, the two powers have
at times cooperated against Persia.
This is noted by Professor
Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh:
“The Russo-Ottoman
agreement of 1724…conspired to dismember…Iran after the fall of the Safavid Empire, and to divide its territories
between the Russian and Ottoman Empires”
[Pirouz
Mojtahed-Zadeh, Small Players of the Great Game, 2004, p.15].
Both
powers were forced to evacuate Persia by Nader Shah Afshar (1688-1747) (see photo below – further discussion item
2c).
Nader
(c) The Soviet Russians & Joseph Stalin. The Independent Republic of Azerbaijan was dismantled and overthrown
by Soviet Russian forces on April 28th, 1920, immediately after which Arran once again became a part of the Russian empire
[xvii]
. Interestingly, the Russians decided to retain
the pan-Turanian invention for Arran, and began to refer to Arran as “The Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan”.
A quick
study of rare historical archives reveals a very cynically self-serving
(and an unintentionally pan-Turanian) Russian approach to the Arran affair:
“The name
“Azerbaijan” for the Republic of Azerbaijan (Soviet Azerbaijan) was
selected on the assumption that the stationing of such as republic
would lead to that entity Iranian to become one…this is the reason
why the name “Azerbaijan” was selected (for Arran)…anytime
when it is necessary to select a name that refers to the territory
of the Republic of Azerbaijan, we should/can select the name Arran…”
Quote
from Bartold, Soviet academic, politician and foreign office official.
See Bartold, V.V., Sochineniia, Tom II, Chast I, Izdatelstvo Vostochnoi
Literary, p.217, 1963.
This
was a brilliant geopolitical move, as it now allowed for Russia,
like the Ottoman Turks before them, to eventually make a grab for
Iranian Azerbaijan. It is very likely that Joseph (Iosef) Stalin (born
Djugashvilii – his mother was Ossetian) (see photo below) was complicit
in this action. Stalin deliberately and repeatedly referred to many
famous Iranian literary figures (such as Nizami, Ganji, Shabestari,
etc.) as “great national Azerbaijani literary
figures”, with no mention of their association and origins
in Persia.
Stalin
Stalin’s
tactic was to lump all historical figures and references from Arran and Azerbaijan as “Azerbaijanis”, pretending that these were never distinct provinces
of Persia, and that neither had any cultural, linguistic or historical association
with Persia.
Stalin
specifically worked at removing pre-communist (Tsarist) archives that
referred to the historical designations of the Republic of Azerbaijan. This
included the Russian language “Russian
Encyclopedia” (printed in 1890, St. Petersburg &
Leipzig, Imperial Germany – see Matini, 1989, p.455 in References) which clearly
distinguished Albania/Arran from Azerbaijan in Iran.
It was
Stalin who encouraged the museums
and maps of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan to refer to Azerbaijani
cities in the Soviet Union and Iran as
if they were one province. Stalin wanted no distinctions made between
former Arran (Soviet Azerbaijan) and
historical Azerbaijan (in Iran). He instructed his hand-picked historians (both in Soviet Azerbaijan
and Russia) to revise the entire history
of Arran and its association with Persia, and to blur Arran’s distinction from the historical
Azerbaijan of Iran (recall the quote from Bartold we cited previously).
By 1937,
Soviet “Anthropologists” formally coined the ethnic name of "Azeris"
to the Albanians/Arranis. These were published as azerbaidzantsi
in Russian and rapidly translated by
the Soviets to azarbaycanli, in Turkish. Stalin’s historians
were instructed to engage in the process of ethno-engineering in
which invented terms were used to de-Persianize
those ethnic groups
of the USSR that had long-standing associations
with the culture and history of Persia. This has resulted in generations of people in the Republic of Azerbaijan being
indoctrinated with Stalinist propaganda and falsified history. Today,
a large number of the people of the Republic of Azerbaijan believe
that Iranian Azerbaijan, which they call “Guney (South) Azerbaijan“, is “occupied” by Iran, and
must be “liberated” and
“reunited” with the Republic of Azerbaijan. These false distortions are being actively promoted
among Iranian Azerbaijanis.
It is
interesting that pan-Turanian activists view Russia as
an enemy, when Russia, between 1920-1990, spent much of its time and resources promoting
their cause by directly sponsoring false
anti-Persian scholarship and propaganda, to the benefit of pan-Turanian
philosophies. Stalin supported the writing of the “Vatan Dili” (The Language of our Motherland), which provided a pan-Turanian
version of the history of “Greater Azerbaijan” (Arran and the historical Azerbaijan
of Iran). The Vatan Dili was specifically written to excise all references of Iranian Azerbaijan’s historical associations
with Persia (e.g. Moses of Dasxuranci’s “History of the Caucasian Albanians” –
see references, and item 3 further below).
Soviet
ethno-engineers went much further however. They literally created at least twenty-four ethnic-territorial designations for numerous
“nationalities” that had never
existed before in history. Most of these new “nationalities” were
Turkic (e.g. Buryatia, Yakutia, Kirgiziya). The Soviets administratively
organized a mosaic of distinct Turkic regions in the USSR and
virtually wrote (or invented) histories for each of them. These actions
have been very helpful to pan-Turanian ideologues. Thanks to Soviet
ethnic engineering, pan-Turanian ideologues can now point to “dozens
of Turkish nations” that “must be united into a single Turan”.
(d) Mr. Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh. A leading proponent of
Arran’s
name change was Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh (1884-1955), the first leader
of the newly created Republic of Azerbaijan (see photo below). Rasulzadeh was of Iranian origin from Baku, and was in fact
heavily involved in the constitutional democratic movement of Iran during
the early 1900s
[xviii]
(see Sattar Khan in item 5).
Amin
Rasulzadeh
was in fact the editor of the newspaper Iran-e-Now (The New Iran). Russian
influence and coercion finally forced the Iranian government to expel
Rasulzadeh from Iran in 1909 (?); he was exiled to Ottoman Turkey, where the Young Turk
movement had gained power.
The Young Turk movement had
a profound psychological influence on Rasulzadeh; he became ensnared
in the embrace of pan-Turanianism. It is noteworthy that before his
conversion to pan-Turaniasm, Rasulzadeh viewed himself and his native
Arran (Albania)
in his writings as members of “Our beloved homeland Iran…”
[xix]
. By 1913, the Turanisized Rasulzadeh returned to
the Caucasus where he joined the Musavat
Party and became its leader shortly thereafter.
Iranians
in general and Azerbaijani activists in particular, opposed the new
name for Arran (Albania).
Azerbaijani political activist Shaikh
Mohammad Khiyabani
[xx]
(photo below) suggested that Iranian Azerbaijan’s
name be changed to “Azadistan” (Land of Freedom) as to
distinguish this from the
newly created Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan
[xxi]
. The usage of the term “Azerbaijan” for Arran was also protested by north Iranian (Gilan) activist, Mirza Kuchek Khan (1880-1921).
Khiyabani
Rasulzadeh
was to admit in 1924 to his former Iranian comrade, Sheikh Hassan Taqhizadeh (photo below – seated next to him is Seyyed Abolhassan Alavi) of Tabriz that he wished to
do “whatever
is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians”
[xxii]
and explicitly admitted that “Albania (present Republic of Azerbaijan) is
different from Azerbaijan (the original Azerbaijan in Iran)”
[xxiii]
. Taqhizadeh and Alavi were the publishers of the
popular Kaveh newspaper, named after
one of ancient Persia’s semi-mythical heroes.
Taghizadeh-Alavi
By the
1930s, Rasulzadeh’s writings revealed his full conversion to pan-Turanianism:
(a) At
first he admitted that “Azerbaijan” (Arran and Azerbaijan in Iran?) was an ancient Iranian province that had been linguistically Turcified
since at least the 13th century.
(b) He
then rejected his previous writings and declared
that Azerbaijan (both Arran and Azerbaijan in Iran) had always been “Turkish” and was never historically an integral
part of Persia
[xxiv]
.
Rasulzadeh
had betrayed his Iranian heritage in two ways. First, he failed to
fulfill his promises to Iranian Azerbaijanis to rectify the name change
he had bought for Arran (at pan-Turanian behest).
Second, Rasulzadeh adopted a false, divisive, and racist ideology.
Rasulzadeh’s legacy continues to haunt the Caucasus and Iran to this day. That legacy has
also provided an excellent tool for geopolitical manipulation.
After
his arrest and expulsion from Russia, Rasulzadeh settled in Turkey,
where he died in 1954 (see his funeral in Turkey below).
Rasulzadeh established the “Azerbaijan
National Centre” in Turkey, a movement which at the time was organized for the purpose of opposing
Soviet rule in Arran (modern Republic of Azerbaijan).
Amin Funeral
]
(e) The role of Soviet Russia in 1941-1946. The notion of a “divided north Azerbaijan versus a south Azerbaijan” was first invented by Russian historians of the Stalinist Soviet
era
[xxv]
. Russian
troops were in fact occupying Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan as part of a joint occupation
force with the British since 1941 (the
Americans came soon after).
As the
Tehran conference
of November
29, 1943 was taking place, Stalin
(seated below left, US President Roosevelt in centre, British Prime
Minister Churchill at right), had already planned to set up his puppet republics in both Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan. Even before Britain,
Soviet Russia and the USA had signed the Tripartite Treaty, The US Secretary of State, Cordell Hull (1871-1955)
had expressed his concern for Soviet assistance for separatist movements
within northern Iran - the United
States viewed this as alarming
at the time (see Hull in References).
Tehran
Conference
Jafar Pishevari (????-1947)
led the separatist “Azerbaijan Autonomous Republic” (see
photo at left) and Qazi Mohammad
(1913-1946) (see photo at right) the Kurdish “Republic of Mahabad” during
1945-1946. Both movements were dependent on the Soviet Union, and collapsed almost
immediately after the Soviet withdrawal in 1946. What is very interesting
is that no pan-Turanian activist (see Chehreganli in item 5a) make
few (if any) references to the fact that both Pishevari and Mohammad’s movements occurred in areas under direct Russian
occupation.
Pishevari Qazi
Mohammed]
Note
the exact similarity of the uniforms of the
Kurdish “martyrs” to the Russian uniforms of the period. Below is
a photo of Kurdish “martyrs” of the Soviet-supported Mahabad Republic – compare these to the field cap and uniform (note shoulder epaulettes)
of General Georgi Zhukov
(1896-1974) (immediately below the
“martyrs” photo):
Martyers
 
Note
again the exact similarity of the uniforms of the
“Azerbaijan Feda-iyan” led by Gholam Yahya Daneshiyan
(see photo at left – Daneshiyan stands at right) to the Russian uniforms of the period. Below right is a reconstruction of
Russian officers in Berlin in 1945; by author Steven Zaloga and history illustrator Ron Volstad
(see references for details):
Gholam
Yahya
Soviet
Despite
the photo’s poor quality, Gholam
Yahya’s uniform is clearly that of a Junior
Lieutenant of the Russian red Army; the two men standing next
to Yahya wear the uniforms and caps of Soviet
NKVD officers (Red Army political/intelligence officers).
Pan-Azeri separatists also fail to explain why the Pishevari
government collapsed so quickly as Tehran marched in to reclaim its
authority. The Russians, who had been
forced by International pressure (mainly US president Harry S. Truman (1884-1972) – see photo below) to end their occupation
of Northern Persia, had left Pishevari with a large amount of ammunition
and automatic weapons – they had also turned over to Pishevari much
of the heavy equipment they had captured earlier in 1941 from the
Iranian army.
Truman
Even
as Russia reluctantly vacated
Iran, she bought Communist activists from a number of nations (e.g. Anti-Athens
Greek Communists)
[xxvi]
into Azerbaijan to fight for Pishevari. This was mainly due to concerns that the vast
majority of Azerbaijanis viewed Pishevari as a Russian stooge and
puppet, and would not fight for him. As their forces rapidly dissolved,
Pishevari and his followers fled to the USSR. In
Tabriz, capital of
Iranian Azerbaijan, huge crowds celebrated the departure of Pishevari
and his Russian supporters. These facts are corroborated in excerpts
by the aforementioned Iranian Azerbaijani professor, Touraj Atabaki:
“What appears to
have been much more crucial than “Western pressure”…in bringing about
the downfall of the Azerbaijani Democrats was the lack of popular
(Azerbaijani) support they had to cope…the speed with which their
regime (Pishevari) collapsed … the virtual absence of any form
of popular armed resistance to the central government’s troops…”
(p.176).
[Touraj Atabaki, Azerbaijan: Ethnicity
and the Struggle for Power in Iran. Published
I.B. Taurus Publishers, 2000]
Even as he was rejected by the very Azerbaijani people he so passionately
advocated, Mr. Pishevari continued his fantasy of partitioning Iran as he sat in Baku. It was after his ejection from Iran, that Pishevari formalized the myth of a “north”
and “south” Azerbaijan (the idea had already been toyed with by Soviet
historians since the 1920s). As noted previously, “North” means the
Republic of Azerbaijan (former Arran) and “South” is the historical Azerbaijan of
Iran.
There are now vigorous attempts by pan-Turanian activists
and their western sympathizers to virtually ignore any link between
Mr. Pishevari and Communist Russian support for his cause. In the Republic of Azerbaijan for example, Pishevari is officially presented as a hero “fighting
to liberate the Azeri Turks from the racist Persians”. Sadly, there
are now a number of naďve Iranian Azerbaijanis who officially celebrate
Pishevari’s birthday. It would seem that time and historical revisionism
has transformed Mr. Pishevari from Soviet collaborator to legend.
Archival
research again reveals a less flattering image of Mr. Pishevari: a
man with an openly servile attitude towards his Kremlin masters. Note
Mr. Pishevari’s telegram to Mr.
Mir Jaafar Bagherov, First Secretary of the Communist Party and
Stalin's hand-picked man in Soviet Azerbaijan:
“Dear and Kind
Father Mir Jaafar Bagherov,
The people of “south”
Azerbaijan who are, beyond any doubt, a part of “north” Azerbaijan, like all peoples
of the world, have eyed their hopes on the great people of the
Soviet Union and the government of the Soviet Union.”
As published in the Azerbaijan Newspaper, No. 213, Azar 1329 (Iranian chronology),
p.224, in Baku,
The Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan. This is cited by Jalal Matini, Azerbaijan Koja Ast? [Where is Azerbaijan?]. Iranshenasi, Volume I, No.3, 1989b, p.458.
Note photo below of Mr. Pishevari in Baku with the Soviet sponsored Azerbaijan Newspaper:
Pishevari
Baku
“The government of the Soviet Union”? The politically embarrassing Bagherov telegram reveals that Mr. Pishevari
was still dreaming of “heroically” re-entering Iran – riding on the back of Soviet tanks of course.
Thanks to massive funding and propaganda efforts, some misinformed
Azerbaijanis are unaware of this information. The fact remains that
Mr. Pishevari was a stooge of Mr. Joseph Stalin and his cronies in
Moscow.
It is truly sad to see how misguided Mr. Pishevari was. The story of his
demise however is even more tragic and is being hidden from public
knowledge. “Official” Soviet history has it that Mr. Pishevari died
in hospital and/or as a result of a car accident in Baku. The real history may be different however.
Although many of those details remain classified, a Georgian immigrant
whose family had ties to the former Soviet regime (who has asked not
be identified), noted that during his stay in Baku, Mr. Pishevari
began to express doubts as to the wisdom of his actions and even felt
that he had betrayed his nation, Iran. The fear of Pishevari “coming
out” led Bagherov to quickly eliminate Pishevari before he made any
embarrassing public statements. He may either have been suffocated
with a pillow or died in his car as a result of deliberate mechanical
tampering. These details cannot be independently verified and most
likely the entire truth of these final tragic events will never be
known.
One of
Stalin’s aims was to use his occupation as leverage to force oil concessions
from the Iranian government at the time. Interestingly, a number of
declassified documents suggest that the British
were sympathetic to the Russians annexing Northern Persia. The British thought that they should “share” Persia’s
oil with the Russians. As noted by Professor Louis:
“There was a powerful current of (British) Foreign
Office thought…that Anglo-Soviet relations could be improved
if it could be demonstrated to the Russians that the British did
not intend to corner all of the Persian oil resources”
[Louis, Wm., R., The British
Empire in the Middle East, 1984, p.57]
Note
the following statement made by the British Head of the Northern Department
of the Foreign Office, Mr.
C.F.A. Warner, at the height of the Pishevari crisis, where he
suggested that the British:
“…look at the problem from the long-term angle
of Anglo-Soviet relations rather than from the point of view of the
feckless Persians”.
[Louis,
Wm., R., The British Empire in the Middle
East, 1984, p.58]
NOTE: Feckless generally means having no effect or importance, lacking
purpose or vitality, feeble or ineffective, careless and irresponsible.
Pishevari
was in fact trying to convert regional economic grievances into a
full blown separatist movement – with Russian support. This is very
similar to what is happening today with the geopolitically sponsored
movements such as the United Azerbaijan Movement who endeavour at
creating separatism based on local (mainly economic) grievances and
linguistic differences (item 5a).
(2) Azerbaijanis
have spoken Turkish since the advent of History.
(a) Archival Information.
Once
again, historical archives contradict pan-Turanian ideology. Note
the following example:
Al-Istakhri (10th
Century AD): Cites people of Azerbaijan speaking both Persian and Arabic (as would have been the case in the
entire Persian realm stretching to Central
Asia at the time of the Caliphates).
The Arranis are mentioned as speaking a different dialect, called
“Arrani” which was different from that spoken by the Azerbaijanis.
The notion
of Azerbaijanis as never having been part of the Persian nation linguistically
and historically is again dramatically contradicted by:
Al-Masudi (10th Century
AD): Reported Persians as “a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains
and Azerbaijan up to Armenia and Arran, and Baylaqan up to Darband
(in the Caucaus), and Rayy and Tabaristan amd Masqat and Shabaran
and Jorgan (Gorgan) and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Heart
and Merv and other places in the land of Khorassan, and Sejistan and
Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz…all these lands were one kingdom
with one sovereign and one language…the language differed
slightly…such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azeri, as well as other Persian
languages.”
The Arrani
dialect mentioned by Al-Istakhri was most likely a transitional post-Pahlavi
language (like modern Kurdish), however it may have been a derivative
of a North Iranian language, such as Ossetian.
Azeri was a Pahalvi based Iranian dialect, and there are unconfirmed
reports of a certain “Fahlavi”
dialect that is still spoken in isolated pockets in Azerbaijan. Most Iranian dialects were displaced by the migration of Oghuzz Turkic
speaking arrivals to Arran and Azerbaijan from Central Asia, from and after the
11th century.
(b) The Turkic arrivals & Manzikert. Pockets of Turkish arrivals to Arran and Azerbaijan are recorded
in 1029 and 1044, however it was in 1054 when the Seljuk Turk warrior
chief, Tughrul Beg, arrived
to and received the submission of the local Iranian rulers of Arran
and Azerbaijan. The local Iranian dialects, Azeri in particular, were gradually replaced
by a Turkic language of the southwest family (Oghuzz). It was Alp Arslan (1029-72)
who established the Seljuk dominion over much of Anatolia, Persia and Mesopotamia
and ensured the legacy of the Turkish language in Azerbaijan and Arran. Byzantine Emperor Romanus Diogenes
IV met Alp Arslan in the Battle
at Manzikert and was defeated and captured by the Seljuks on August
19 or 26, 1071. A key element in the defeat of the Greeks was the
act of betrayal by Andronicus Ducas, the commander of Romanus’
rearguard. At a crucial moment in the battle, Ducas simply retired
to Constantinople (modern Istanbul), apparently in a short-sighted and self-serving attempt at enhancing
his own political position.
The Manzikert
battle, and Alp Arslan’s victory was of immense consequence:
[a] It
was a major factor leading to the crusades,
[b] The
downfall of Constantinople in 1453
[c] Expansion
of subsequent (Ottoman) Turkish power into Central
Europe by the 1600s
[d] It
ensured the survival of Turkish
as the main vernacular in Azerbaijan and Arran
(c) Linguistic Turkification. The process of linguistic Turkification was reinforced with the arrival
of the Mongols in the 1200s,
and their Il-Khanid dynasty in Persia.
Tamerlane’s descendants, the Qara/Kara-Qoyunlu
(Black Sheep) and Ak/Aq-Qoyunlu
(White Sheep) also ruled Iran. It
must be noted that the Turkish migrants became absorbed into mainstream
Persia,
and they greatly patronized Persian, arts, culture and literature.
Turks as whole have been tremendously influenced by Iranian culture
– a prime example is the Moghul
Dynasty of India, of Turkmen-Mongol descent. The Moghuls promoted
Persian culture in India, a legacy which
lasts to this day in modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
By the
early 16th century (see Safavids
item 4), Azerbaijani Turkish
had largely replaced the
indigenous Iranian Azeri in Azerbaijan and had also spread to Arran. The Turkish language however, did not alter the thousands year long
Iranian character and legacy of Arran and Azerbaijan. As noted in item 4, the Safavid dynasty, whose members spoke Turkish
in court and introduced much Turkish vocabulary to Iran, considered themselves
as the heirs of Persia and
bitterly fought the Ottoman Turks throughout their reign.
In Persia,
identity has never been delineated by singular, simplistic and narrow
concepts such as “race”, “mother language” or even “religion”. Consider
the following examples:
The Buyid dynasty (945-1055
AD), hailed from the Daylamites of Northern Persia who spoke a post-Sassanian
Pahlavi dialect. Note illustration of a Dailamite female governess/warrior
of Rayy (near modern Tehran):
Banu of
Rayy
]
The aforementioned
Nader Shah was an ethnic
Turcomen and adhered to the Sunni branch of Islam. Karim Khan Zand (1705-1779) (see illustration below) and his partisans
spoke Luri, a west Iranian language distinct from Persian and Kurdish.
The Zands (like Nader Shah before them) were essential in preserving
Persia’s
territorial integrity after the fall of the Safavids.
Zand
(d) Resistance against Ottoman Turks. The bitter legacy of Ottoman attempts to annex Azerbaijan and Arran,
and to dismember Iran, has been long remembered by the Azerbaijanis, who virtually always
stood as Persia’s front line against Ottoman expansionism. Note the following observation
by Professor Atabaki:
‘The
well-established Ottoman policy of military expansion into
Azerbaijan…goes a long way in explaining the hostile Azerbaijani
attitude towards what came to be the modern Republic of Turkey”
[Touraj
Atabaki, 2000, p.11]
Pan-Turanian
ideologues are attempting to change this history as well. Simply put,
they are perpetuating (yet another) fraudulent view
that Azerbaijanis and Ottoman Turks have been friendly allies ever
since the foundation of the Ottoman Empire. This is as
absurd as trying to pretend that Russia and Germany were close allies during World War One (1914-1918) and World War Two
(1941-1945).
The Safavids
(Azerbaijanis), Nader Shah Afshar (Turcomen) and Karim Khan Zand (Lur)
all considered themselves to be the heirs of the ancient Persian realm.
It is truly ironic to see pan-Turanian ideologues claiming the Safavids and Afsharids
(among others) as “ethnic Turks”, as it was these who formed a major factor in resisting the Ottoman Empire and defeating its
attempts to annex Persia.
(e) World War One. Pan-Turanian
ideologues have been deluding themsleves about the history of the
Perso-Ottoman wars ever since the foundation of the Young Turk movement
(and perhaps earlier). When Iran was in virtual chaos during and after World War One, the Ottomans simply marched into Iran’s Azerbaijan province, believing they
could easily create another “Musavat” style pan-Turanian movement.
Their flawed sense of history (and reality) resulted in an abysmal
failure:
“Contrary
to their expectations, the achievements of pan-Turkists in Azerbaijan during and immediately after World War One were not very impressive.
Although the province was occupied by Ottoman troops, their
attempts to create a solid base of support among Azerbaijanis ended
in failure…did not succeed in facilitating Azerbaijani-Ottoman
relations…arrest popular leaders Khiyabani | 