Ashtyako Poorkarim: The Geography of Iran is Totally Fictional

What is today called Iran, with its map resembling a “sitting cat,” was once named after the ruling empires, from the Sassanian Empire to the Safavid Empire, the latter being the last to govern the region. At the same time, Turkey was known as the Ottoman Empire. All these empires followed a similar system and logic in their naming conventions.

The current name “Iran” was officially adopted in 1935 under the influence of figures such as Said Nafisi, Mohammad Ali Foroughi, and Hesam Taghizade, who were prominent supporters of Pan-Iranism and Pan-Persianism. These intellectuals, gathered under the first Pahlavi dynasty with the direct support of Reza Shah, took measures to enforce this change. Said Nafisi, one of Reza Khan’s main advisors, formally proposed the name change.

After Nafisi published his article in Ettelaat newspaper in November 1935, this proposal became a reality. Thus, both this name and the so-called “contractual” geography of Iran are entirely fictional. The term “contractual” does not mean that Iran is a neutral country like Switzerland, but rather that its centralized power imposed this artificial geography on the various nations within its borders.

This imposition has led to numerous uprisings over time. During the era of Iranian empires, the absence of revolts was due to the decentralization of power. However, since then, major insurrections have emerged and continue to this day in Kurdistan, Balochistan, Al-Ahwaz, and Azerbaijan. Over time, this dissatisfaction has not disappeared and will persist until Iran’s geography returns to its true scale and size.

In Kurdistan, the revolts of Simko, as well as contemporary uprisings led by the Democratic Party, the Khabat and Komala organizations, the Sarbasti Party, and others, are clear expressions of rejection toward this imposed and artificial geography.

Under the name “Iran,” all other nations—including Kurds, Baloch, Ahwazi Arabs, Azerbaijani Turks, and many others—have been denied their identities and forced to be called “Iranians.” However, a Kurd is a Kurdistanian, a Baloch is a Balochistanian, an Arab is an Ahwazi, and an Azeri Turk is an Azerbaijani. In reality, the name “Iran” and the Iranian identity represent only the Persians and their land.

At different times, nationalist movements have taken the form of independence struggles, federalism, or autonomy. However, they have always been brutally suppressed, often through religious fatwas and massacres carried out by the central government.

The persistent opposition of the Persian establishment to the fundamental national rights of non-Persian peoples is rooted in geopolitical concerns. Iran is a land with limited natural resources and water. Its survival depends on the exploitation of wealth from non-Persian regions: Balochistan’s gold-rich mountains, Al-Ahwaz’s water resources, ports, and oil reserves, as well as Kurdistan’s aluminum, gold, silver, oil, and gas. To sustain itself, the central Iranian government has always enforced repression in the harshest, most brutal, and inhumane ways.

Among these acts of repression, we can mention Khomeini’s 1979 jihad fatwa against Kurdistan, the attack led by the warlord Chamran with the support of Bani Sadr, and the massacres of Kurds in Mahabad, Naghadeh, Sanandaj, Paveh, Gharna, Ghalatan, Inderghash, and Sarchenar, where twenty thousand Kurds were killed. Similar atrocities have been committed against other non-Persian peoples living under Iranian rule. The Iran-Iraq war is another example: the war devastated the environment of Kurdistan and Al-Ahwaz, causing the deaths of many of their inhabitants. Yet, Khomeini referred to the war as a “divine blessing.” However, when Tehran was attacked, he had no choice but to accept the UN resolution, ending the conflict.

Another major concern for the Persian central government is the exposure of its false historical narrative. If non-Persian nations gain independence, the fabricated history of Iran will collapse. This history is built on distortion, theft, and the appropriation of the history of other religions and cultures within Iran, particularly that of the Kurdish nation.

Archaeological discoveries in Iranian-occupied Kurdistan have revealed many examples of this. The Persians, who lacked their own history, have, for example, stolen the Kurdish Yarsan ritual, making slight modifications before presenting it as their own. This is one of the reasons for the severe repression of Kurdish Yarsan followers.

Over the past forty years, thousands of Kurds have been arrested, and hundreds of young Kurds have died after enduring medieval torture in Iranian prisons. This is the so-called “divine Persian justice,” which has been exploited through Shia Islam to fulfill imperialistic ambitions. If we look at recent years, we can see how brutally this regime has treated the Gonabadi Shia mystics. For the Iranian regime, it does not matter whether a Kurd is Shia, Sunni, Yarsan, or Zoroastrian—they oppress everyone simply for being Kurdish.

However, they are well aware that our struggle in Iranian-occupied Kurdistan is not a religious battle but a national struggle for our rights—our independence. What they call the “dismemberment of Iran,” we see as the rightful liberation of our land, language, and existence. To me, the so-called “dismemberment of Iran,” in which I have no rights, is a great and honorable cause. Yes, I am a Kurd fighting for independence, and those who have colonized my land, language, and identity will inevitably be forced to retreat.

There is so much more to say, but time is short. If I were to discuss every aspect of this issue, it would take weeks. Therefore, in conclusion, I emphasize that the Kurds and other non-Persian nations present at this gathering have tested all modern and existing methods with this regime, as well as with the Pahlavi and Qajar dynasties before it.

The result is clear: there is no way to tolerate this fascist ideology. Any attempt at negotiation will only lead to wasted time and bloodshed, further destruction of our environment, culture, history, and civilization, and ultimately, our complete assimilation.

Reza Khan implemented this policy through his so-called “White Revolution,” and the Islamic Republic has continued it under a different guise.

Thus, for us—non-Persian nations—there is only one path: the path of independence. No matter how favorable the situation may seem, no matter what the outside world wants, and no matter what the Persians promise to give us, the essential truth remains: we must take control of our own destiny.

We will remain committed to our struggle until we are free from tyranny and occupation. Until we achieve independence, we will defend ourselves in every possible way—militarily, civilly, and politically—and we will never surrender.

 

Previous articleAshtyako Poorkarim: La géographie de l’Iran est totalement fictive
Next articleLondon, part of the statement by the pro-independence Kurdish, Arab Ahwazi, Azerbaijani Turk, Baloch, Turkmen, and Caspian parties.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here