A proposal regarding human rights and the February 1979 revolution.

Given the conviction of the Shah and the report of the International Red Cross Organization regarding the torture of 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? How much 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 February 1979 revolution and what was it 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 come to a unified conclusion. Therefore, we have approached a group of political and social activists who were somehow involved in the political and social events in Iran in the late 1950s; most of these individuals are also considered victims of human rights violations before and after the February 57 revolution.

Mohsen Rezvani, a political activist and former secretary of the Confederation of Iranian Students Abroad, is one of the individuals who has answered our questions in this proposal and we are grateful for his cooperation.

The concept of human rights, like any other social idea and topic, has evolved over the course of human development. Human ideas stem from human practices, and with the expansion and development of social activities in human society, the idea of defending human rights has also evolved. Therefore, we can say that self-defense in the early stages of human life was a defense of oneself against the harshness of animals and nature that existed around them. Gradually, as class societies emerged, self-defense against oppressors and exploiters became the main focus, and to this day, this remains the primary basis for defending human rights. The fundamental reason for the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the prominence of the concept of human rights was the emergence of fascism and Nazism, which resulted in a tragedy – especially in Europe – with the killing and burning of millions of Jews and communists inhumane acts. Therefore, this declaration, which reflects the conditions of that time and the victory

Regarding the importance of human rights in the years before the February 1979 revolution, I can prove that during the Shah’s reign, the Confederation of Iranian Students was one of the most reputable organizations that was able to raise the flag of defending the rights of Iranian people through its activities. After the coup on August 28th, the general turmoil and suppression of all political parties and organizations within the country, the Confederation took a stance against this suppression from outside the country and exposed the crimes of the monarchy regime in defense of democracy and freedom. Essentially, the most reputable and active secretary of the Confederation at that time among its five secretaries was the secretary of the Defense Committee, and the Confederation established executive committees in its units to defend political prisoners and expose the torture of SAVAK. The peak of these activities was able to attract the attention of many democratic and progressive figures around the world, especially in Europe and America, including Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beau

In slogans such as “Free Mossadegh, the national hero”, “Fight for the freedom of all political prisoners”, and “United struggle to save the lives of prisoners from the danger of death”, the concepts of human rights are clearly seen.

What happened in Iran was a continuation of the rule of the same class in a different manner and with different coverings, and there was no change in the societal foundation; as a result, the violation of human rights did not make much of a difference and may have even worsened. From 2500 years ago until now, the clergy and aristocracy, whether in conflict or in alliance, have always agreed on a fundamental issue, which is the shadow or representative of God on earth. This very issue contradicts the human and human rights that humans have fundamental rights (from the right to life to other rights) on the earth. This very legitimacy of the rulers themselves has unfortunately led to the use of the most brutal means in our society to suppress the masses and their representatives. However, in comparison, it seems that the tendency of the ruling elite during the Shah’s era towards European extravagance and the tendency of the Islamic Republic towards religious traditions have created differences in the suppression of political prisoners and

In that revolution is accompanied by violence, there is no doubt, but I believe that violence has primarily occurred outside of the revolution. Human history shows that violence usually takes place when there is no existing revolution and a dominant power has access to all means of suppression. If we look at the history of violence in Iran and its neighbors, we can see this; including the killing of over one million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire.

The revolution is essentially a surgery for a sick society that leads to improvement and is, in fact, a historical necessity. Now, in some places, due to resistance from rulers, this pain and suffering of childbirth may increase, or in a place where public opinion has been mobilized and rulers are weak and unstable, this revolutionary transformation may occur with less pain and suffering. With this explanation, I still consider myself a revolutionary after all these years and continue to fight for a society free from oppression and exploitation, for humanity to be treated as equals.