A proposal regarding human rights and the Bahman 57 Revolution.

Given the conviction of the Shah and the report of the International Red Cross Organization on the use of torture on political prisoners by SAVAK in prisons as an example of human rights violations, to what extent were the concerns of the revolution and revolutionaries about human rights standards and principles? To what extent did the slogans of the revolution refer to human rights concepts? In terms of human rights and freedom of expression, what was the situation in Iran before the revolution in February 1979 and what was it like after? What were the main reasons for the people’s protests? Some believe that the revolution itself cannot be free from violence; but what is actually considered violence? Do you consider yourself a revolutionary today or someone who is more committed to human rights standards?

These are the questions that we have wanted to find answers to different perspectives in order to possibly reach a unified conclusion. Therefore, we have turned to a group of political and social activists who were somehow involved in the political and social events of Iran in the late 1950s; most of these individuals are also considered victims of human rights violations before and after the February 57 revolution.

Dr. Fariborz Dana, economist, university professor, and human rights activist, is one of the individuals who has answered our questions in this proposal and we are grateful for his cooperation…

The uprising of the Iranian people and their movement against tyranny, dependence, and lack of justice began long before and immediately after the departure of Reza Shah from Iran and the transfer of the monarchy to his son. This was done by taking advantage of the conditions of war and occupation and in the power vacuum. Various movements and organizations formed in the 20th decade of the solar calendar, with the peak being the nationalization of oil led by Mossadegh. The suppression of this movement and the coup on August 28th, of course, temporarily halted the people’s movement for a few years, but it eventually led to various forms of resistance, organization, and finally an armed movement. The opportunity presented itself during the Carter administration and global opposition to the Shah’s regime, giving the existing movement a fresh force, but it was not the creator of it. The Carter administration did not have any inclination to overthrow the Pahlavi dynasty from the beginning, despite the Shah’s illness, weakness

In any case, when the social and political storm of uprising began, gradually the issue of human rights delegated itself to bigger ideals and slogans, not to be forgotten. The slogan of overthrowing monarchy, death, freedom, and independence, and fighting corruption and freeing political prisoners, certainly holds the demands of human rights within itself, but not in the way that you are now considering. In the slogans, there was not directly a slogan for the observance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the desire for freedom and liberation from the rule of the Shah, which was intertwined with the presence of America in Iran’s politics and economy, was certainly comprehensive in terms of human rights. No revolution is formed for specific demands of a certain declaration, although uprisings can be like that. The fact that the free newspapers, organizations, and freedom of political prisoners showed practical attachment and the established regime tried step by step to eliminate them after 57 minutes, shows that the demands of human rights were hidden

I can say that the majority of what was signed by Iran under the name of international human rights declarations was openly disregarded. There was no news about freedom of the press, even organizations, minority rights, political freedoms, the right to protest, or the right to protest against economic injustice. The Shah regime had established silence and cemetery-like consent in small and medium-sized cities and villages, with full control by the army and SAVAK, and using fear and deprivation of the people. Part of the middle class had reached their first thousands and cooperated with the regime. Of course, development plans were also implemented, but at the same time, there were also great wealth being acquired and taken out of the economic sphere. Economic growth, especially after the increase in oil income, had been achieved, but poverty, deprivation, discrimination, and injustice still existed, and intellectuals and part of the modern middle class were dissatisfied with the political situation and the construction of power and the presence of discrimination. Part

Revolutions may turn violent, and it is possible for them to do so, but the revolutionaries are not to blame; except in rare exceptions and mistakes. Revolutions and revolutionaries are striving to achieve social and human desires, and they have the right to do so. They fight against tyranny and oppression. When they are faced with violence from the police and oppressive forces, they resist. Taking hold of the hand of a police officer who has attacked you with a baton is not violence, in fact, it is anti-violence. Revolutionaries do not have a desire to engage in violence, they are fighting against violence and the unjust rulers of politics and economics. Even in the midst of resistance and war, they do not seek luxuries and sweets. I see political and social revolution as a means to eliminate the foundations of oppression and violence. A revolution must pursue the rights of children, women’s liberation, the right to organize, and similar issues. However, a democratic revolution goes

“Revolution is fundamentally a phenomenon of human rights. Human rights have been the main motivation for revolutions throughout history, in a country, in a society, in an environment, in a region, or in the whole world; however, the perception and tangible and mental circumstances of human rights have been different in different historical eras. Today, revolution must aim for the “integrity” of global economic and political arenas and human solidarity. Separating the components of human rights and fearing detachment from human rights in this world of imperialist injustices – ignorance, superstition, anti-human and selfish tendencies – does not solve the problem. Separating political rights from economic rights is essentially ignoring the root causes of suffering for the masses and human labor force.”

The revolution that is committed to human rights does not resort to violent means or dishonorable methods, it is decisive, does not compromise, pays attention to economic and class realities, does not hesitate to defend itself, and does not use superficial bourgeois excuses and religious, national, and moral preaching as a reason to ignore real contradictions and fundamental necessities of transformation and root causes. Moralists do not speak to the ruling powers, but to the resistance, they feel a sense of human rights.