If we sit down to read the accounts of political prisoners in the prisons of the Islamic Republic in the 1960s, it is impossible not to hear about the policy of repentance during this time; a process in which political prisoners were forced to repent by interrogators and prison officials, and despite their shame and declaration of disgust for their past struggles, they remained imprisoned and their existence was used to advance the government’s goals in various areas.

Some of the political-prisoners of the 60s would repent in order to escape from the terrifying punishments of execution or torture. According to the accounts of some prisoners of that time, they were even asked to commit acts against other prisoners. Mehdi Mamarpouri, who was arrested in Tehran in 1360 and spent eight years of his life in prisons of the Islamic Republic, is one of those who were asked to execute one of his fellow inmates after repenting.

Despite the fact that the policy of repentance has been more prevalent than ever in the 1960s, with the publication of the repentance verification guidelines by the head of the judiciary, it seems that the Iranian judicial system still defines its roots based on a particular interpretation of religion. This is despite the claim that this method is not as effective as it was in the past. However, the question that arises is where does this policy originate from and why is it not effective among political prisoners today?

Reza Kazemzadeh, a psychologist who has been working with torture victims from all over the world for a long time, believes that one of the reasons why this policy has failed in the current judicial system in Iran is the lack of political parties and groups, especially ideological ones, in the current order: “There are no longer any political groups that would expect someone to not bow down to torture. It can be said that the equation has somehow been disrupted and the view towards violence has fundamentally changed.”

In the present report, an attempt has been made to discuss the origins of the policy of reconstruction in the 1960s through reviewing Houshang Asadi’s narrative. In an interview with Reza Kazemzadeh, a psychologist, we will delve into the emergence of this policy in the Iranian judicial system.

Repentance in the trap of Satan.

Houshang Asadi is a former political prisoner of Iran who has spent many years in prisons of the Islamic Republic and SAVAK. In his book titled “Letters to My Torturer,” he provides enough information about the policy of reconciliation in the 1960s. In response to the question of why this policy has failed among political prisoners today, he says: “Unfortunately, I am not aware of what is happening in Iranian prisons today, especially regarding reconciliation, and whatever I say is without evidence; therefore, we must stick to the past.”

Although this former political prisoner does not express any opinions about the policy of reconciliation in the present time, a look at his writings familiarizes us with this policy in the 1960s.

In his book, Asadi equates repentance with putting one’s foot in the trap of Satan, saying: “There is no greater lie than the one I told myself, and the sleeves of my shirt are still wet from my first ablution.” He also recounts the solution he found for escaping the obligations of religion: “One evening, as I return to my cell, the Quran is still being played on the loudspeaker. My brother from Zanjan brings me a book called “Teachings of Prayer” written by Sayyid Ali Khamenei. I start reading and try to learn. I memorize the Arabic sentences. I have a habit of walking to memorize something and repeating the words. With difficulty, I stand on my injured feet and repeat the Arabic words. But before I can say the first sentence, a wave of fear and anxiety overwhelms me and pulls me into myself. All my pains come alive. I sit down and close the book.

Reconciliation, hidden violence.

Reza Kazemzadeh is a psychologist who has been working with torture victims from various countries for a long time. He has conducted research on the topic of rehabilitation as a method of political violence and says about the origin of this policy in the Iranian judicial system: “Initially, it was not a policy chosen by prisoners in the 1960s, but rather a policy imposed on political prisoners by the government. There was a mindset under the name of revolutionary ideology that had its roots in the 1940s and 1950s. These ideologies, whether Islamic or Marxist, used violence as a tool in power relations and in the realm of politics.” He adds: “There was a belief that violence could somehow lead to the self-development of a revolutionary individual. In other words, a fighter on the path of fighting for justice and freedom would face some difficulties, sufferings, and hardships that could play a significant role in shaping their inner identity. This discussion was also present in the

Kazemzadeh continues to talk about the prison environment, saying: “The prison was a setting where resistance or surrender was brought up. This resistance or surrender was seen as a sign of the individual’s ideal beliefs; meaning that if you could break someone in prison and make them confess and repent, it was believed that you could undermine the validity of their ideas. On the other hand, many political activists believed that the best way to prove the validity of their beliefs was not through reason and study, but by showing courage and bravery in the face of violence; meaning that if you could break us, you would question the validity of our opinions, but if we could resist, it meant that your system and regime were wrong.”

This psychologist believes that the Iranian judicial system intended to create a factory of human engineering through the policy of rehabilitation. For example, in such an environment, some interrogators – who were revolutionary youth – wanted to build a factory of human engineering in prison; meaning that they truly believed that with the violence they used against prisoners, they could somehow transform them and thought they could make them realize their thoughts and ideas were wrong and start to become familiar with the truth. In Islamic thinking, you don’t only see this in the context of prison. This idea of humanization through the use of violence was also clearly demonstrated in the Iran-Iraq war. The same mentality that existed in Evin prison was also present in the Basij group, that if you go to war and endure the violence inflicted upon you because of your beliefs, not only can you achieve your social goals, but you can also transform yourself and become a superior human being. Reza Kazemzadeh, about the psychological consequences of

Kazemzadeh, who believes in repentance, explains the reason for the occurrence of psychological damages among repenters as follows: “Repentance had a personal aspect and the individual had to go back to their past as a human and then prove that they were joining a new group called repenters; but they were never able to form such a group because they could never create new connections among individuals; therefore, individuals were placed in a state of disconnection with their past social groups and this led to some psychological damages in these individuals, which also caused trouble for the regime; meaning they were faced with individuals who suffered from severe psychological disorders. Unfortunately, according to existing documents, some of them, despite being repenters and having no role in it, were executed in 1965 and 1967.”

He speaks about the nature of these mental disorders with a peaceful tone: “One of the fundamental rights of all individuals should be the right to privacy; meaning that in order for your mind to have balance, you must have a boundary between yourself, your desires and thoughts, and the things you want to reflect to the outside world, and have the right to choose what you share with others. This psychological boundary between yourself and the outside world is undoubtedly reflected in social life as a private space, which is recognized in the laws of many countries today; meaning that individuals have the right to keep secrets and set boundaries for themselves, and choose who can enter that boundary. The work of white torture is not just physically harming a person; it is also known as personal clarification in psychology, meaning the elimination of all secrets. The policy of normalization did not stop at just exposing the political members of a group. There was a belief in prison that a person must eliminate all past and boundaries that they need to differentiate

Kazemzadeh talks about the political reactions of parties whose members were confessing and repenting, to the peace talks. He says, “Unfortunately, the dominant mindset at that time was the same mindset that considered resisting torture as a value and a sign of ideological authenticity, and could not accept that their members would speak or repent under torture and pressure. There was really nothing for these groups in terms of psychology and human psyche, and they thought these matters were purely voluntary. The balance of these individuals is so disturbed that they can manipulate anyone and it only takes time and energy. Our psyche has laws that are not all under our control. For example, the basis of white torture is these psychological processes that are partly beyond our will; meaning they try to affect the personality of the other person in a way that even they themselves are not aware of what is happening within them.”

He adds, “The person who spoke on behalf of his group was considered an outcast and a traitor. The average age of the people who were in prison at that time was much lower compared to the average age of those who go to prison today. For example, they were high school students who had joined a political group and did not have much opportunity to become familiar with many issues. Today, when we talk about journalists and civil activists, we see more experienced individuals. There are no longer political groups that expect someone to not break under torture. It can be said that the equation has somewhat changed and the perspective on violence has fundamentally shifted. For example, in the 1960s, the government did not have much concern for showing the inappropriate conditions of prisoners with untrimmed beards and tortured faces, and even used it as a tool to create fear; but as we move into the 1970s and 1980s, we see a great effort to reduce physical and

In the new repentance procedure, which has been published by the judicial authority, one of its articles clearly states the declaration of remorse and a written commitment based on not committing a crime and effective cooperation of the perpetrator in discovering the crime or introducing accomplices and assistants, which shows that, just like in the past, the policy of repentance at the highest level is aimed at questioning the opposing individual’s beliefs and, while falsely labeling their ideological system, considering the existing political order as sound and correct.