We are determined to sit down with one of the revolutionaries or analysts in each issue of the peace line and discuss the position of human rights in the 1957 revolution, and seek their views on the dominant discourse of the revolution and the stance of political groups and the masses towards human rights. In this issue, Mr. Farrokh Negahdar, the secretary of the People’s Mojahedin (majority), will answer our questions.

Dear Mr. Negahdar, you have said in various places that during the 1957 Iranian Revolution, human rights were neglected and disregarded. If we accept this statement, how would Iranians interpret human rights to the same extent?

Both from the perspective of leftist groups and from the perspective of Islamic groups, individual rights were seen as a means to diminish social and bourgeois collective rights, whether liberal or arrogant. In fact, among leftist or Islamic groups, there was a kind of pessimism towards the universal theory of human rights. The left recognized social rights, such as the right to employment, independence, housing, and free education, and in the systems of attention, these were the main focus of human rights.

Generally, in our perception and that of other leftist groups, freedom of expression was conditional or limited to not being against social rights and the communist ideal. And of course, the Islamists also saw freedom of expression as conditional on not attacking Islam. Therefore, the general understanding of human rights was based on the social aspect of these rights, which had identity, class, and national aspects, and their individual aspect was overshadowed by the social aspect.

Given the social understanding of the left and Islamists about human rights, was it possible to reduce the level of violence and violation of human rights after the 1957 revolution?If the evaluation of the various forces that participated in the revolution was closer to their capabilities and the balance of social powers, they would have avoided unjust attacks to gain inaccessible power resources, and this would have reduced the likelihood of bloody conflicts. The ruling faction believed that other groups and factions in society were essentially insignificant and were greedy, and that eliminating these groups could be beneficial for society. The government believed that if it was necessary to close universities or pass through the sword of all these groups, it did not matter because the opposition was a small minority and they also believed that Iran had reached a level of political development or social support for them that could withstand the wave of the Islamic Republic government, which was seeking to establish itself, and turn the pages of history in a different direction. Both of these evaluations, in my opinion, were unrealistic.

We, the leftists, the Mujahideen, or the nationalist groups, did not have enough power in the early years of the revolution to stop this turning

Does this mean that if the opponents of the Islamic Republic were less opposed or did not challenge the Islamic Republic in that way, their rule would have tolerated them?In my opinion, the word “tolerance” may not be appropriate. At least I can say that if, for example, the Mujahedin organization had not expected to remain an armed organization and have a share of power, and had not resorted to assassination and violence, the level of killings would have been lower. This means that perhaps the regime could have tolerated the passive existence of the Mujahedin organization to some extent, or postponed attacks on political organizations. The argument and disagreement I had with the leaders of the Mujahedin organization at that time was that I believed that postponing this confrontation with the system could reduce the explosive power of this clash, analyze the mass support base, and the Islamic Republic could suppress with less force.

As you have said, delaying the confrontation with the Islamic Republic has been the majority’s tactic. The criticism that is brought up against this tactic is that the majority has gone so far down this path that it has convinced its supporters that even if the Islamic Republic imprisons or executes us, it is still justified in its fight against imperialism. Are you aware of this criticism?We did not understand that the regime was justified in imprisoning or executing supporters of the organization. Many times, in the bottom of the newspaper, we would print photos of members of the organization who were either handed over to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s courts for execution or killed by personal clothing, and on the other hand, photos of those who were killed on the fronts of Iran and Iraq in defense of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and we would criticize and condemn this contradiction in various ways. We never justified our arrest or trial as a just act. We only saw the fight against imperialist rule as just. We condemned the suppression of members of the organization and criticized the government’s contradiction in dealing with those who were defenders of the revolution.

When the forces of an organization are arrested or prosecuted by the government, it will show a strong reaction to the government’s actions. However, the majority did not show this strong reaction. What was the reason for this behavior?
This is a very interesting question. Perhaps the majority organization is one of the few organizations that even when its members are under attack, they still do not abandon the principles they believed in at that time. For other organizations, especially the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which was in a way a sister organization to us, it was very influential in determining how others behaved towards them. This way of thinking stems from the belief that their organization is the standard of truth. In this belief, anyone who attacks them is of a demonic nature and an enemy. This method was used by this organization in dealing with all opposing forces of the Mujahedin-e Khalq.

This resistance within the majority organization continued until 1985, several years after the attack on the organization and our escape from the country, and it was only from 1985 to 1998 that the suppression of our members intensified and under their pressure, the organization took a more aggressive stance towards the government. In other words, for

Some critics refer to the majority of the organization as not showing any reaction when the organization was under attack, but when the leadership of the organization became the target of the government, you fled the country and took a more aggressive stance than in the past. Are you aware of this criticism?Firstly, those who were targeted were mostly officials and staff of the organization, and the organization’s supporters were not attacked in the years 59, 60, and even 61. Except in small cities where left-wing activists were known, and they were also immune from attack when they migrated to other cities. Secondly, when the security forces’ attacks on ordinary members of the organization intensified, the slogan of overthrowing the organization became the main slogan, and this was in the years 64 and 65. This is because the departure of central members of the organization took place in early 62. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that we were soft until ordinary members of the organization were attacked. As I said, in the early days of the revolution, most of the staff were persecuted. In total, eight members of the central organization were arrested and executed. In the following period, when the organization was attacked, the central apparatus was no longer under attack, and one of the criticisms

Do you accept this criticism?Of course, my conscience is in agony when I see some people sitting in a safe place and encouraging others who are under attack to fight hard.

The majority organization to some extent encouraged civil actions, including dialogue between opponents and the Islamic Republic, and the establishment of a rule of law. Why were these advancements not fully realized? In other words, why did the discourse of the majority organization not shift from fighting imperialism to promoting freedom and human rights?The reason goes back to the first question. The capacities of the semi-grown democratic organization in the majority only existed to the extent that it could avoid violence and conflict, accept the rule of law, support dialogue with opponents, and enthusiastically participate in it. I add that we were the only armed organization that handed over our weapons to the government after the revolution and disarmed ourselves. This was a very big step at the time. All opposing groups, including left and right and nationalist, took pride in having weapons. At the same time, the majority devoted all their time and effort to expanding civil institutions in society. We made great efforts to expand labor unions, student organizations, and so on.

Your question is why these values are not so widespread that the issue of human rights becomes the basis and the struggle against imperialism becomes the greatest demand of the organization. The reason is that the global atmosphere at that time was so polarized that it did not allow society to distance itself from the negative feelings towards the

In discussions related to the role of human rights in the 1957 Revolution, as you also mentioned, the fight against imperialism by the Islamic Republic is often brought up as a factor in disregarding or downplaying human rights. What was the basis of the fight against imperialism by the Islamic Republic? Did it have roots in opposition to modernism and have a reactionary approach, or was it influenced by modern teachings and have a humanistic and egalitarian approach, or was it a combination of both?
I agree with your final interpretation. The maturation of desires within the Islamic Republic has proven that it was not just anti-modernity that was considered. Although the ruling elements used the fear of citizens having less cultural maturity than modernization as a means to create a material force against America, a review of the events of the early years of the revolution showed that the struggle against imperialism was not only a “struggle against modernity”. Rather, the fear of people towards modernity was a means to advance policies that would harm the interests of America and England in Iran and the region, and ultimately lead to their downfall in Iran and the region. The central issue of the struggle was the extent to which America, England, and other countries would have power and influence in Iran and the region, and the extent to which the people of Iran and the region would have power.

Now, thirty years after these struggles, it seems that the idea that foreign powers were controlling our country and, for example, turning

Mr. Banisadr and his supporters believed in independence and freedom, and as a result, human rights were their main demand in the 1957 revolution. They generally consider their eleven million votes as the most important reason for supporting independence and freedom. What is your opinion on this matter?Today, I read an article from Bakhtiyar and I am quoting it for you. He says that Mr. Bani Sadr is not Bani Sadr without Mr. Khomeini, but Mr. Khomeini is still Khomeini without Bani Sadr. In other words, it became clear in the midst of events and incidents that if Mr. Bani Sadr’s words, which were in favor of independence and freedom, had been taken into account and this sentiment had been present in each vote that was cast, because Mr. Bani Sadr is with the Imam, therefore it is good and my vote for him has no problem, at that time we would not have witnessed the demonstrations that were organized against Bani Sadr in Iran and we would have seen demonstrations that Ayatollah Khomeini is not Iran’s Pinochet. While in the streets they were saying that the commander-in-chief of Pinochet is not Iran’s Pinochet and

As a final note, if there is anything else, please let me know.
Just one note: Mr. Banisadr made a deal with the Mujahedin organization and they also had a violent nature and were willing to do anything to achieve their goal, which was overthrowing the government. They resorted to violence and also attacked Saddam and other victims of the Iranian revolution. However, there were other forces who criticized the removal of Mr. Banisadr and were not satisfied with the government’s treatment of him, but they remained in Iran and relied on national resources and tried to change people’s minds and move forward. Specifically, I mean the two groups that formed around Iran Tomorrow and Kian, and especially the Iran Tomorrow movement always has an impact on me, wondering why we, as the majority organization – with the justification that nationalist religious groups and Mr. Bazaar are not so keen on intensifying anti-imperialist policies and support some freedoms and people’s rights – did not see this scene and why we took such a aggressive stance against this movement. The biggest

Thank you very much for participating in this conversation.