Asghar Ali Engineer is a rights activist and heads two organisations, the Institute of Islamic Studies and the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism. He has authored or edited 44 books on such issues as Islam and communal and ethnic problems in India and South Asia in general.

For links to his other articles, please go to the top page of this site.

(Secular Perspective April 16 – 30, 2000)
 

Iran is currently passing through a great turmoil, a turmoil as grave as during the Islamic revolution, and even greater in significance. Iran’s Islamic revolution had shaken not only the Islamic world but entire the entire western world. The tremors were felt in all the western countries. The Islamic revolution was led by Ayatullah Khomeini – undoubtedly a man of extra-ordinary courage and conviction, though orthodox in his orientation. He challenged and humbled the mightiest power in the world – America whom he described as ‘great Satan’. The revolution in Iran had baffled all the political analysts of the western world. The western powers were backing the Shah of Iran to the hilt and were confident that his regime was ‘stable’. In order to understand the significance of reform movement in Iran today it will be important to understand the background to the Islamic revolution in Iran.

 The Islamic revolution in Iran was no mere accident of history. It took place when the Islamic world was going through a political turmoil. The defeat in war with Israel in 1968 had shaken the ruling classes in the Arab world. This defeat greatly discredited the ideology of Arab nationalism promoted by Jamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser had become, in early fifties, a cult figure, for the Arab masses. He symbolised the aspirations of Arab masses as he had challenged the western imperialism. However, his gains were wiped out in his defeat in the 1968 Israel war. He died a disillusioned person. In other words Nasser failed to humble western imperialism – a task in which Ayatullah Khomeni remarkably succeeded.

 The ideology of Arab nationalism gave way to Islamic revival. This was further reinforced by the partial victory of Egypt vis-à-vis Israel in 1972 war. This also led to oil crisis in the world as the Arab nations decided to use the oil weapon for the first time to challenge the domination of the west. During this period the pro-western ruling classes in the Muslim countries were being discredited and it was for this reason that Anwar Sadat, the then president of Egypt, was assassinated by the Muslim youth swearing by revivalist Islam as he followed the policy of infitah (opening out to the west).

 The Shah of Iran was not only pro-west but was pro-Israel too. He was also being armed to teeth by America in order to protect its own interest in the oil rich region of the middle east. The Shah, in his enthusiasm to follow pro-western policy, not only ignored the sensibilities of Iranian people but also antagonised the powerful class of Shi`ah `ulama. It is interesting to note that the `ulama in Iran were highly politicised class since early twentieth century. They had played important role in the Tobacco movement in the beginning of twentieth century. Shah of Iran did not learn any lesson from history of his own country. It will be of some interest to quote here from the book Islam and Democracy recently published by John Esposito and John Voll. They observe, “In Iranian history, Twelver Shiism (Ithna Ashari) has often been apolitical, finding a tolerable accommodation with state. However, at critical points throughout history, Shii belief,  leadership, and institutions have played an important role in Iranian politics and society. Shiism has been interpreted and utilised to safeguard national identity and independence and to moblize popular support.”

 It is this fact which the Shah ignored and paid the price. The Shah carried out superficial reforms and was applauded for that by the liberals. The reforms were an attempt at westernisation and had narrow acceptability among the westernised elite around the Shah. This and the Shah’s blatantly pro-western policy, aroused the ire of the people of Iran and they rallied round Khomeini. Khomeini acquired greater authenticity in the eyes of people of Iran as he remained firm in the face of persecution unleashed against him by Shah’s regime. His son was also killed during the course of struggle. Khomeini could mobilise Iranian masses which no leader of the Muslim world could. He appealed not only to Shi`as but also to Sunnis in the Islamic world as he made Muslims proud of their Islamic identity. 

 There is another aspect of Islamic revolution in Iran which has to be kept in mind in order to appreciate the significance of the reform movement in Iran. In the entire Islamic world including the Saudi Arabia, it is the political class, which wields power. The ‘ulama, though quite influential in Saudi Arabia, are after all dependent on the Saudi rulers. It was only in Iran that the ‘ulama came to exercise political power directly. This is unprecedented in the Islamic world. This empowerment of ‘ulama is under challenge today in Iran. The challenge has come both from moderate `ulama and from liberal middle classes. The youth and students are also in the forefront of the battle for reforms. The fact that Khatami was elected as president of Iran with overwhelming majority itself shows which way the wind is blowing. Not only that in the recent parliamentary election too, the reformists won and the conservatives received a set back. Enraged the conservatives tried to play foul. The mayor of Tehran, a supporter for reforms and close to Khatami, was accused of corruption and sentenced to imprisonment. Few other supporters of President Khatami similarly faced similar charges.

 It must be said Khatami, himself an `alim of moderate views, is a great boon to Iran. Iran, as happens after revolutions, has witnessed zealotism and excesses. No revolution can escape these excesses. It will be highly surprising if it does. In a way Islamic revolution in Iran was far less bloody but not entirely free of excesses and since the revolution, as pointed out before, was led by the clergy, it was a unique one. All revolutions in the world since eighteenth century have been led by progressive forces that fought against church and feudal political power. Iranian revolution was the first revolution, which was led by clergy itself. It is also interesting to note that the clergy led by Ayatollah Khomeini was politically progressive (anti-imperialist, anti-American) but socially and religiously quite conservative. We have such an example from India also. The Deobandi `Ulama supporting the freedom struggle were politically quite progressive (supported composite nationalism and opposed partition of the country) but socially they were quite conservative too.

 The Islamic revolution found overwhelming support from the masses because of highly repressive policies of the Shah. The youth (which is again fighting repressive measures of conservative clergy in Iran today) was feeling suffocated and also there was rampant unemployment and high degree of inflation. These factors together gave rise to a politically very explosive situation. The ground for Islamic revolution was ready. Today once again the youth feels suffocated due to repressive policies of the conservative clergy and is hungry for reforms, for more freedom and accommodation with the west. In July 1999 the unrest in Iran gripped the youth and university students. Thousands of masked students (ironically the students used to mask themselves during Shah’s period also) took to the streets of Tehran on July 10 (1999) to demand the sacking of Iran’s hard line police chief as the authorities failed to quell growing anger over a bloody police crackdown. More than 20,000 students turned out for protest – the largest since the wave of campus protests began and biggest outpouring of popular anger since the 1979 Islamic revolution. It was this unprecedented wave of unrest that forced the conservative clergy to relent somewhat.

 It was also a unique feature of the Islamic revolution of Iran that it led to establishment of a democratic regime. The other revolutions generally led to totalitarian regimes. That is why many monarchies, feudal Sheikhdoms and military dictatorships in the Islamic world were mortally afraid of Iranian revolution fearing uprising in their own country. Also women were also given right to vote unlike some of the Islamic countries like Kuwait which deny this right to their women. Also, women could hold elective posts. Now the vice president of Iran is a woman. But the legislation passed by parliament was subject to the scrutiny of what the Iranian constitution calls wilayat-e-faqih (authority of the jurist). As long as Khomeini was alive his authority as a jurist could not be challenged. However, after his death rumblings began as no one else could claim such prestige. A council of the jurists was elected for the purpose.

 What are the issues involved in the reform movement in Iran? The issue is of course is of freedom of thought. The newspapers and magazines have been subjected to strict censorship. The student unrest in fact began by closing down of a paper thought to be quite liberal and advocate of reforms. The students demanded restoration of the paper and clashes with the police began. The other issue is of relaxation in relations with the western countries, especially with the USA. The third issue is of women’s rights.  Women were an important force in fighting for Islamic revolution. The women had won some rights during the Shah’s regime but these rights were more apparent than real. The women ironically won some concessions like giving up veil, wearing western dress but lost their political freedom. Thus wearing western dress and giving up veil was no freedom at all. They thus preferred to give up their skirts and began to wear chador for real freedom.

 However, soon after the Islamic revolution, they began to face restrictions they had not opted for. The conservative clergy imposed Shari`ah laws mechanically. Even Khomeini, perhaps under pressure from other conservative colleagues, went back on his promises to women. Thus women began to fight for their own rights. They did not have objection to chador, if shari`ah laws, as interpreted by the medieval jurists, were changed to keep pace with the changes taking place all around. Chador was, after all, a symbol of dignity for them. Many women’s magazines like Payame Haajar advocating women’s rights within the Islamic frame-work began to be published. The women’s issues are most central to the reform project. For example the magazine Payame Haajar in an article “Are Men Superior to Women” says, “As Muslims we consider the edicts of the Holy Qur’an  to be the final arbiter in all matters pertaining to our life in this world as well as the next. However, sometimes, some problems crop up due to misunderstandings emanating from misinterpretations of verses…. Of the Holy Qur’an, resulting in unjust rulings being issued against women in court cases.”

 The women have tremendous awakening in Iran after the revolution as they were in its forefront and they are in the forefront of the reform movement as well. Thus the reform movement has generated enough pressures for the conservative clergy to sit up and think. Though it is difficult to say that the reformists have decisively won but to be sure the trend is in their favour and the conservative clergy may find it difficult to resist change.