Glimpses of World History

by Jawaharlal Nehru

  But an artistic Court did not signify good government; rulers who prided themselves on their patronage of art and literature were often enough incompetent and cruel as rulers. The whole system of society in Persia, as in most other countries at the time, was more or less feudal. Strong kings became popular because they stopped many of the petty exactions of the feudal lords. There were periods of relatively good rule and other periods of thoroughly bad rule.

  Just when Moghal rule was in its last stages in India, the Safavi dynasty came to an end, about 1725. As usual, the dynasty had played itself out. Feudalism was gradually breaking up, and economic changes were going on in the country, upsetting the old order. Heavy taxation made matters worse, and discontent spread among the people. The Afghans, who were then under the Safavis, rose in revolt, and not only succeeded in their own country, but seized Isfahan and deposed the Shah. The Afghans were soon driven out by a Persian chief, Nadir Shah, who later took the crown himself. It was this Nadir Shah who raided India, during the last days of the decrepit Moghals, massacred the people of Delhi, and took away vast treasure, including the Peacock Throne of Shah Jehan. Persian history during the eighteenth century is a dismal record of civil war and changing rules and misrules.

  Russia and Persia

  The nineteenth century brought new troubles. Persia was coming into conflict with the expanding and aggressive imperialism of Europe. To the north, Russia was ceaselessly pressing, and the British were advancing from the Persian Gulf. Persia was not far from India; their frontiers were gradually approaching each other, and indeed today there is a common frontier between them. Persia was on the direct route to India and overlooked the sea-route to India. The whole of British policy was based on the protection of their Indian Empire and the routes leading to it. In no event were they prepared to see their great rival Russia sitting astride this route and looking hungrily at India. So both the British and the Russians took a very lively interest in Persia and harassed the poor country. The Shahs were thoroughly incompetent and foolish, and usually played into their hands either by trying to fight them at the wrong moment or by fighting their own people. Persia might have been wholly occupied by Russia or England and annexed or made a protectorate like Egypt but for the rivalry between these two Powers.

  At the beginning of the twentieth century Persia became the object of greed for another reason. Oil or petroleum was discovered, and this was very valuable. The old Shah was induced to give a very favourable concession for the exploitation of oil-fields in Persia to a British subject, D’Arcy, in 1901 for the long period of sixty years. Some years later a British company, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, was formed to work the oil-fields. This Company has been working there since, and has made huge profits out of this oil business. A small part of the profits went to the Persian Government, but a great part went outside the country to the shareholders of the Company, and among the biggest shareholders is the British Government. The present Persian Government is strongly nationalistic, and objects very much to being exploited by foreigners. They cancelled the old sixty-year D’Arcy contract of 1901 under which the Anglo-Persian Oil Company had been working. The British Government was very annoyed at this, and tried to threaten and bully the Persian Government, forgetting that times have changed and it is not so easy to bully people in Asia now.1

  But I am anticipating future history. As imperialism threatened Persia, and the Shah became more and more its tool, inevitably it led to the growth of nationalism. A nationalist party was formed. This party resented foreign interference, and objected equally strongly to the Shah’s autocracy. They demanded a democratic constitution and modern reforms. The country was misgoverned and heavily taxed, and the British and Russians were continually interfering. The reactionary Shah felt more at ease with these foreign governments than with his own people who were demanding a measure of freedom. This demand for a democratic constitution came chiefly from the new middle classes and the intellectuals. The victory of Japan over Tsarist Russia in 1904 impressed and excited the Persian nationalists greatly, both because it was a victory of an Asiatic Power over a European one, and because Tsarist Russia was their own aggressive and troublesome neighbour. The Russian revolution of 1905, although it failed and was ruthlessly crushed, added to the enthusiasm and desire for action of the Persian nationalists. The pressure on the Shah was so great that he reluctantly agreed to a democratic constitution in 1906. The National Assembly, called the “Mejlis”, was established, and the Persian Revolution seemed to have succeeded.

  But there was trouble ahead. The Shah had no intention of effacing himself, and the Russians and British had no love for a democratic Persia which might become strong and troublesome. There was conflict between the Shah and the Mejlis, and the Shah actually bombarded his own parliament. But the people and the troops were with the Mejlis and the nationalists, and the Shah was only saved by Russian troops. Both Russia and England had, under some pretext or other—usually the excuse of protecting their subjects—brought their own troops and kept them. The Russians had their dreaded Cossacks, and the British utilized Indian troops to bully the Persians with whom we had no quarrel.

  Persia was in great difficulties. She had no money, and the condition of the people was bad. The Mejlis tried hard to improve matters; but most of their efforts were scotched by the opposition of either the Russians or the British or both. Eventually they looked for help to America and appointed an able American financier to help them in reforming their finances. This American, Morgan Shuster, tried his best to do so, but always he came up against the solid walls of Russian or British opposition. Disgusted and disheartened, he left the country and returned home. In a book Shuster wrote afterwards he gave the story of how Russian and British imperialism was crushing the life out of Persia. The very name of the book is significant and tells a tale—The Struggling of Persia.

  Persia seemed destined to disappear as an independent State. The first step towards this end had already been taken by Russia and England by dividing up the country into their “spheres of influence”. Their soldiers occupied important centres; a British company exploited the oil resources. Persia was in a thoroughly miserable condition. Outright annexation by a foreign Power might even have been better, for this would have brought some responsibility with it. Then came the outbreak of the World War in 1914.

  Persia declared her neutrality in this war, but the declarations of the weak have little effect on the strong. Persia’s neutrality was ignored by all the parties concerned, and foreign armies came and fought each other, regardless of what the unhappy Persian Government thought of the matter. All round Persia were countries who were in the war. England and Russia were allies on one side; Turkey, whose dominions included at the time Iraq and Arabia, was an ally of Germany. The war ended in the victory of England, France and their allies in 1918, and Persia was then wholly occupied by British forces. England was on the point of declaring a protectorate over Persia—a mild form of annexation—and there were also dreams of a vast British Middle Eastern Empire from the Mediterranean to Baluchistan and India. But the dreams did not come true. Unfortunately for Britain, Tsarist Russia had vanished, and in her place there was now a Soviet Russia. Also unfortunately for Britain, her plans went astray in Turkey, and Kemal Pasha rescued his country from the very jaws of the Allies.

  All this helped the Persian nationalists, and Persia succeeded in remaining nominally free. In 1921 a Persian soldier, Riza Khan, came into prominence by a coup d’état. He gained control of the army and later became prime minister. In 1925 the old Shah was deposed and Riza Khan was elected the new Shah by the vote of a Constituent Assembly. He took the name and title of Riza Shah Pahlavi.

  Riza Shah reached the throne peacefully and by methods which were outwardly democratic. The Mejlis still functions, and the new Shah does not presume to be an autocratic monarch. It is clear, however, that he is the strong man at the helm of the Persian Government. Persia has changed greatly during the last few years,
and Riza Shah is bent on many reforms so that the country might be modernized. There is a strong national revival, which has put new life into the country, and which is taking the shape of an aggressive nationalism wherever foreign interests in Persia are concerned.

  It is most interesting to note also that this national revival is in the true Iranian tradition of 2000 years. It looks back to the early days, prior to Islam, of Iran’s greatness, and tries to draw its inspiration from them. The very name which Riza Shah has adopted is a dynastic name—

  “Pahlavi”—takes one back to the old days. The people of Persia are, of course, Muslims—Shia Muslims—but in so far as their country is concerned, nationalism is a more powerful force. All over Asia this is happening. In Europe this took place hundred years earlier, in the nineteenth century; but already nationalism is considered by many people there to be an outworn creed, and they look for new faiths and beliefs which fit in more with existing conditions.

  Iran is now the official designation of Persia. Riza Shah has decreed that the name Persia must no longer be used.

  126

  About Revolutions Generally, and Especially Those of Eighteen Forty-Eight in Europe

  January 28, 1933

  Idu’l-Fitr

  We must now go back to Europe and have another look at the intricate and ever-changing picture of this continent during the nineteenth century. Already in some letters written two months ago we surveyed this century and I pointed out some of its leading characteristics. You can hardly be expected to remember all the “isms” I mentioned then: industrialism and capitalism and imperialism and socialism and nationalism and internationalism—to repeat a few of them! I told you also of democracy and science, and the tremendous revolutions in methods of transport, and popular education and its product, the modern newspaper. All these things, and many more, made up the civilization of Europe then—the bourgeois civilization in which the new middle classes controlled the industrial machine under the capitalist system. This civilization of bourgeois Europe went from success to success; it climbed height after height; and toward the end of the century it had impressed itself and all the world with its might, when disaster came.

  In Asia we have also seen in some detail this civilization in action. Urged on by its growing industrialism, Europe stretched its arms to distant lands and tried to grab them and control them and generally to interfere with them to its own advantage. By Europe here I mean especially western Europe, which had taken the lead in industrialism, and, of all these western countries, England was for long the unquestioned leader, far ahead of the others, and profiting greatly by this lead.

  All these vast changes that were going on in England and the West were not evident to the kings and emperors early in the century. They did not realize the importance of the new forces that were being generated. After Napoleon had been finally removed, the one thought of these rulers of Europe was to preserve themselves and their kind for ever more, to make the world safe for autocracy. They had not wholly recovered from the terrible fright of the French Revolution and Napoleon, and they wanted to take no more chances. As I have told you in a previous letter, they allied themselves in Holy Alliances and the like to preserve the “divine right of kings” to do what they chose, and to prevent the people from raising their heads. Autocracy and religion joined hands for this purpose, as they had often done before. The Tsar Alexander of Russia was the moving spirit in these alliances. No breath of industrialism or the new spirit had reached his country, and Russia was in a medieval and very backward condition. There were few big cities, commerce was little developed, and even handicrafts were not of a high order. Autocracy flourished unchecked. Conditions were different in other European countries. As one travelled west the middle classes were more and more in evidence. In England, as I have told you, there was no autocracy. The king was kept in check by Parliament; but Parliament itself was controlled by a handful of the rich. There was a great deal of difference between the autocrat of the Russias and this rich ruling oligarchy of England. But they had one thing in common—fear of the masses and of revolution.

  So all over Europe reaction triumphed and everything that had a liberal look about it was ruthlessly suppressed. By the decisions of the Congress of Vienna in 1815 many nationalities—for instance those of Italy and Eastern Europe—had been placed under alien rule. They had to be kept down by force. But this kind of thing cannot be done successfully for long: there is bound to be trouble. It is like trying to hold the lid of a steaming kettle down. Europe simmered with steam, and repeatedly the steam forced itself out. I have told you in a previous letter of the risings of 1830, when several changes took place in Europe, notably in France, where the Bourbons were finally driven out. These risings frightened the kings and emperors and their ministers all the more, and they suppressed and repressed the people with greater energy.

  In the course of these letters we have often come across great changes in countries brought about by wars and revolutions. Wars in the past were sometimes religious wars and sometimes dynastic; often they were political invasions of one nationality by another. Behind all these causes there was usually some economic cause also. Thus most of the invasions by the Central Asian tribes of Europe and Asia were due to their being driven westward by hunger. Economic progress may strengthen a people or a nation and give them an advantage over others. I have pointed out to you that even in the so-called religious wars in Europe and elsewhere the economic factor was at work in the background. As we approach modern times we find that religious and dynastic wars cease. War, of course, does not end. Unhappily it becomes more virulent. But its causes now are obviously political and economic. The political causes are chiefly connected with nationalism: the suppression of one nation by another, or the conflict between two aggressive nationalisms. Even this conflict is largely due to economic causes, such as the demand by modern industrial countries for raw materials and markets. So we find that economic causes become more and more important in war, and indeed today they overshadow everything else.

  Revolutions have undergone the same kind of change in the past. Early revolutions were usually palace revolutions: members of the ruling families intriguing against each other and fighting and murdering each other; or an exasperated populace rising and putting an end to a tyrant; or an ambitious soldier seizing the throne with the help of the army. Many of these palace revolutions took place among a few, and the mass of the people were not much affected by them, and they seldom cared. The rulers changed, but the system remained the same, and the lives of the people continued unchanged. Of course a bad ruler might tyrannize a great deal and become unbearable; a better ruler might be more tolerable. But whether the ruler was good or bad, the social and economic condition of the people would not usually be affected by a mere political change. There would be no social revolution.

  National revolutions involve a greater change. When a nation is ruled by another, an alien ruling class is dominant. This is injurious in many ways, as the subject country is ruled for the benefit of another country, or of a foreign class benefiting by such rule. Of course it hurts greatly the self-respect of the subject-people. Besides this, the alien ruling class keeps out the upper classes of the subject country from positions of power and authority, which they might have otherwise occupied. A successful national revolution at least removes the foreign element, and the dominant elements in the country immediately take its place. Thus these classes profit greatly by the removal of the superior alien class; the country generally profits because it will not then be ruled in the interests of another country. Those lower in the scale may not profit much, unless the national revolution is accompanied by a social revolution also.

  A social revolution is a very different affair from the other revolutions, which merely change things on the surface. It involves a political revolution also, but it is something much more than that, as it changes the fabric of society. The English Revolution, which made Parliament supreme, was not only a political
revolution, but partly a social one also, as it meant the association of the richer bourgeoisie with those in power. This upper bourgeois class thus rose politically and socially; the lower bourgeoisie and the masses generally were not affected. The French Revolution was even more of a social revolution. As we have seen, it upset the whole order of society, and for a while even the masses functioned. Ultimately the bourgeoisie triumphed here also, and the masses were sent back to their place, having played their role in the revolution; but the privileged nobles were removed.

  It is obvious that such social revolutions are much more far-reaching than merely political changes, and they are intimately connected with social conditions. An ambitious, over-eager person or group cannot bring about a social revolution, unless conditions are such that the masses are ready for it. By their being ready I do not mean that they are consciously prepared after being told to be so. I mean that social and economic conditions are such that life becomes too great a burden for them, and they can find no relief or adjustment except in such a change. As a matter of fact, for ages past, life has been such a burden for vast numbers of people, and it is amazing how they have tolerated it. Sometimes they have broken out in revolt, chiefly peasant revolts and jacqueries, and in their mad anger blindly destroyed what they could lay hands upon. But these people were not conscious of any desire to change the social order. In spite of this ignorance, however, there were repeated breakdowns of the existing social conditions in the past, in ancient Rome, in the Middle Ages in Europe, in India, in China, and many an empire has fallen because of them.

  In the past, social and economic changes took place slowly, and, for long periods methods of production and distribution and transport remained much the same. People, therefore, did not notice the process of change, and thought that the old social order was permanent and unchangeable. Religion put a divine halo round this order and the customs and beliefs which accompanied it. People became so convinced of this that they never thought of changing the order even when conditions were so changed that it was manifestly inapplicable. With the coming of the Industrial Revolution and the vast changes in methods of transport, social changes became much swifter. New classes came to the front and became wealthy. A new industrial working class arose, very different from the artisans and field-labourers. All this required a new economic arrangement and political changes. Western Europe was in a curious state of misfit. A wise society would make the necessary changes whenever the need for them arises, and so derive full benefit from changing conditions. But societies are not wise, and they do not think as a whole. Individuals think of themselves and of what will profit them; classes of people having similar interests do likewise. If a class dominates any society it wants to remain there and to profit by exploiting the other classes below it. Wisdom and foresight would demonstrate that in the long run the best way of profiting oneself is to profit society as a whole of which one is a member. But a person or class in power wants to hold on to what it possesses. The easiest method of doing so is to make the other classes and people believe that the existing social order is the very best possible. Religion is dragged in to impress this on the people; education is made to teach the same lesson; till at length, amazing as it is, almost everyone believes in it absolutely and does not think of changing it. Even the people that suffer from this system actually believe that it is right for it to continue, and for them to be kicked and cuffed, and to starve while others live in plenty.