No Fear

In the eighth decade of her life, Simin Behbahani, contemporary Iran’s first lady of lyric poetry, with her lined brow and white hair, speaks more of times long gone by than today.

On a blazing hot summer day, Simin Behbahani, with her usual banter and mocking way—which has its roots in her days as a teacher—speaks of pain and the unending and inconclusive story of political prisoners in her homeland. Today, 100 years after the unfinished Constitutional Revolution, Iran is passing through yet another restless period. Some posters of her poems (“I Will Rebuild You, Homeland” and “Open a little Window of Freedom onto my Prison Cell”) and photos from Simin’s past and present decorate the walls of her home.

The aged poet, with tear-filled eyes that no longer see that well, emphasizes that she has no fear of the Islamic Republic as she goes over the memories of times gone by. She speaks of nights in Evin Prison in 1981 and the 1988 massacres; and how, from dusk until dawn, prisoners counted gun shots to keep a tally of the number of political prisoners who were executed by the Islamic Regime. She remembers the period after shah’s coup d’etat of August 19, 1953, when political prisoners were shot in groups. She continues into the years after the “Revolution,” and to the morning when Saeed Soltanpour, the revolutionary poet, director, and member of the Iranian Writers’ Association, was taken from his wedding ceremony to Evin prison and never returned. She continues her travel through time to the night when, under the rule of the “velayat-e faqih”, Iran’s renowned journalist and researcher, Rahman Hatefi, scratched at and injured his face with his own nails until morning so that he could not be filmed for televised confessions like his comrades. The blood of thousands of other political prisoners had not yet dried in the cells of Evin Prison when the Forouhars were stabbed to death inside their own home in 1998. Thousands of other activists have also been murdered in the course of the years, such that the fate of alternative thinkers in Iran has become a matter of repetition. That fate continues today; both Akbar Mohammadi and Valiollah Feyz Mahdavi died in prison only a few weeks ago after a short hunger strike. The well-known and adored Iranian poet considers her painful memories to be reflective of a nation’s history and the struggle for justice and freedom.  

Soheila Assemi: Ms. Behbahani, in recent years, you have been an active participant wherever there has been an effort to demand the freedom of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in the Islamic Republic of Iran. You have given speeches, written poetry, and participated in protests. Please tell us why you feel these activities are necessary during this specific period in our homeland?

Simin Behbahani: I have done this because speaking out, expressing one’s views, and standing by one’s opinion are among the pillars of democracy. If we seek to establish a democracy in our country, then every citizen should be able to express his/her opinions; every person must be able to say what is in his/her heart and put forth suggestions for reforming society. When no possibility exists for any of the above in a country, then freedom becomes meaningless. Of course, observing and upholding the rights of others has its own importance in freedom. Human rights must be observed completely. Individuals must not be doomed to being suppressed and executed by firing squads for expressing their opinions.

In 1979 we witnessed a mass movement that was referred to as a revolution or an uprising. The ideals and demands of that movement have continued, in one form or another, since the Constitutional Revolution of 1906 but remain unfulfilled. The main slogans of both revolutions were “national sovereignty, freedom, and social justice.”  One hundred years of the people’s struggle has passed - that is one hundred years of being suppressed, jailed and executed for being the people’s advocates.  In your opinion, how is the situation of the political prisoners under the ruling “velayat-e faqih” different from what their fate would have been under the shah’s regime?

We have had political prisoners under both regimes. Under monarchy, suppression ruled our country. Of course, there were more individual freedoms then because that shah’s regime was not a religious regime but a secular one.

Does this mean that the “religious” nature of this regime has created a more problematic situation?

That is right; because now religion intrudes on all aspects of people’s lives in Iran. Therefore, in addition to the fact that freedom of expression does not exist in our country, individual freedoms have been curtailed due to the religious character of the regime as well. The range of the government’s intervention has become quite broad. This means, based upon the suspicions of the beholder, any criticism or resistance may be construed as opposition to religion.

When the 1979 Revolution occurred, the doors to all prisons were supposed to be opened as a matter of principle. In fact, the people’s pivotal slogan was “free all political prisoners.” What, in your opinion, has happened to us in the course of the last 27 years?

We all took part in the revolution because we thought we would attain freedom. However, in the 27 years since the Islamic Republic was established, our prisons have been filled with political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. The only “crime” of the most of these prisoners has merely been the expression of their opinions. A large number of our political prisoners lost their lives inside the prisons of the Islamic regime; and a number of the survivors were then killed outside the prisons. There were many freedom lovers who were executed in prison, such as the famous poet and member of Iranian Writers’ Association, Saeed Soltanpour, or Saeedi Sirjani, and many others. Among those who were murdered outside prison were Dariush and Parvaneh Forouhar, Jafar Pouyandeh, Mohammad Mokhtari, Mir Alaie, Tafazzoli, Zalzadeh, and others. The latest victim is Akbar Mohammadi. Before him, Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian-Canadian photojournalist residing in Canada, was also tortured to death after being charged for photographing student protesters and the families of political prisoners. Well, obviously these acts violate the basic principles of human rights.

What do you remember from the decade between 1981 and 1991? What do you recall from the massacre of political prisoners that took place in the summer of 1988?

At that time, I regularly heard about the mass executions of a very large group of Iran’s youth. Those who have been in the Islamic Republic’s prisons recall that every night, until dawn, all they heard was the sound of shots being fired. They used to tally the number of the victims based on the number of shots they heard. Several mass graves exist in every city. It has been told by eye witnesses that the corpses of a great number of the executed political prisoners encased in burlap sacks were transported by trucks and buried in unmarked mass graves. The list, published abroad, of those executed is very long. Those executed were, mostly, members of political parties or organizations such as the Mojahedin-e Khalgh, “Fedayeen” (Majority and Minority), the Tudeh Party, or the Laborer’s Path, or “Peykar.” I have not been particularly close to, nor have I worked with, any of these organizations.

I have heard that in your youth, you were a sympathizer of the Youth Organization of the Tudeh Party of Iran. Is that right?

Yes it is. When I was young, I sympathized with the Tudeh Party. I used to work with its Youth Organization. However, when I realized that their characteristics did not suit my way of thinking, I pulled out. After August 19, 1953, I did not work with any political organizations.

We just passed the 53rd anniversary of the coup d’etat of August 19, 1953. What do you remember from the country’s political and social atmosphere after the fall of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh’s independent government, the shah’s return, and the wave of executions and the compulsory migration of activists?

Following the coup d’etat, an absolute silence took hold and the press did not publish for awhile. We witnessed the execution of several groups of military and intellectual Tudeh Party supporters, among them, Morteza Keyvan, Iran’s great poet and critic. Many others spent years in prison. A few years later, several magazines such as “Sepheed-o-Siah” (Black and White) and “Omid-e Iran” (Hope of Iran), were published. Little by little, things changed and everything grew anew until the revolution.

Our homeland has gone through many stages—both successes and disappointments—in the course of the 100 years following the Constitutional Revolution. Perhaps one of these turning points was the 2nd of Khordad, 1376 (May 23, 1997) when Mr. Khatami was elected as the Islamic Republic’s president and assembled his reformist administration. At that time, at the peak of that movement, how far did you believe the changes could go?

After eight years of war with Iraq,the resultant destruction, and the deprivations that the people of this country suffered, I believed that the situation had no other chance to change and improve. Under those circumstances, Khatami’s rise to power was a source of hope and optimism. In the 1997 elections, many people expressed their feelings quite freely on this subject. Unfortunately, in the very first year Khatami’s term, the political chain murders took place. This issue brought back feelings of despair to society at large— especially when the investigation of those murders proved inconclusive and even more so when Nasser Zarafshan, the courageous prosecutor in this case, was thrown in prison over five years ago. The second time that Khatami was elected, people still retained a smidgeon of hope in their hearts. Unfortunately, that hope, too, turned quickly into despair and the country’s socio-political atmosphere worsened.

During the last year, concurrent with the excitement of the ninth presidential elections, those who sought to transform Iran emphasized people’s demands through gatherings and demonstrations. Among these activities were the seven-day gathering in front of Evin Prison, which demanded freedom for Nasser Zarafshan and other political prisoners, the gathering of women in front of Tehran University, and the gatherings calling for the release of Akbar Ganji, including one in front of Tehran’s Milad Hospital during his hunger strike. You partook in all these gatherings. Please tell us about your experience participating in these events.

I did not think Ganji deserved all that suffering. We were close to losing him after he went on his long hunger strike.  At the beginning of his hunger strike, I wrote a poem for him. Also, when it was time for him to break his strike, I wrote another poem.  At the time of the gathering in front of Milad Hospital, we met with Ganji’s attending physician, but they did not permit us to visit him. I sent Ganji the poem I had written for him—in which I had requested him to break his hunger strike—along with a single rose, through his physician. Akbar Ganji was at the verge of dying at the Milad Hospital.

Recently, with Mr. Ganji’s departure from Iran and the three-day public hunger strike he organized to promote the cause of three political prisoners representing the country’s three political movements, varying opinions were expressed. The Iranian Writers’ Association—of which you are an active member—issued a communiqué rejecting participation in this hunger strike, but you emphasized your support. What was the story behind that discord?

You see, the Iranian Writers’ Association is an independent organization comprised of writers with varying opinions who may even disagree with each other’s personal beliefs. Therefore, we cannot ask everyone to follow a certain policy or opinion. As members of this organization, we have agreed on only two principles: opposition to censorship and agreement with and support for democracy. Regardless of the member’s other beliefs, opinions, ideologies and religion, any writer who accepts the above two principles can become a member of the Iranian Writers’ Association. A number of members opposed the hunger strike organized by Ganji. The rest of us could not impose our opinions upon them so that they, too, would support it. I was in favor of supporting Ganji and still stand by this belief. I hope Ganji can remain a free, incorruptible and respectable man.

One of the criticisms directed at Mr. Ganji’s recent action by the country’s leftist and democratic forces was that Dr. Nasser Zarafshan’s name did not appear on Ganji’s list. Concern arose that, given the above fact, Mr. Ganji’s movement embraces what is known as “religious liberalism, and therefore, why should we follow that?” What is your opinion on this matter?

In any case, Ganji is free to make his own decisions and express his opinions. We did not support Ganji's opinions. We spoke of Ganji’s freedom and endeavored to bring about circumstances in which he could openly express whatever he wishes in the arena of public opinion. However, it does not necessarily mean that all political prisoners are correct when they become free and express their plans and opinions. And it is not necessary that their beliefs be accepted by others. We support their right of freedom of expression; though they may be incorrect. However, thus far, I have liked everything Ganji has expressed and I believe that, so far, he has behaved appropriately.

Unity is an essence issue in our people’s movement.  How can such unity be achieved among the various political forces in order to maintain the “absolute minimums” necessary for the continuation of the democratic movement and its ability to play a role in the country’s future?

I believe in unity. I believe that, as much as possible, we should bring together the various political groups, organizations, parties and activists.  Of course, the Iranian Writers’ Association is not a political party or group, but it is an organization.  Our organizations must not hinder each other. On the contrary, they should accept what they like in each other; and peacefully oppose what they dislike in a reasonable fashion.  Tolerance of others’ opinions—even though their opinions may be different than one’s own—is the essence of democracy.

How do you believe these “absolute minimums” must be defined in order to bring the country’s various political forces closer together?

Many potential problems lie in this path.  We can reach agreements with each other through forgiveness, tolerance, mutual understanding and peaceful cooperation. However, in actuality, sometimes this equation does not hold true.  Political arrogance, vehement expressions of feelings, insistence on opinions, prejudiced beliefs, etc., split political activists and groups.

Another concern regarding Mr. Ganji’s struggle for political prisoners’ freedom, expressed by certain political activists, is the potential repetition of what happened in February 1979: blindly following one person leadership and his slogans without really knowing where he is taking the followers.

I do not believe this holds true in Ganji’s case.  Based on the short meetings I have had with him, I do not believe Ganji plans to get a group of people to follow him.  I have also heard him speak several times via satellite television programs and I have not felt this was the case.  This is no longer the era when one person can become the sole leader and gather a group of blind followers.

Some analysts believe that our country is now in a delicate and complicated situation.  On the one hand, there is an authoritarian regime that violates the national interests of Iran.  On the other hand, there are international powers that also threaten our country’s national interests, who have even mentioned the possibility of a military strike on the country.  In your opinion, under these circumstances, what is the pressing and overriding responsibility of the country’s democratic forces bound by the three principal concepts of our revolutions: liberty, independence and social justice?

One cannot always get ahead through waging war, applying force and being a bully.  There are times when national interests dictate that one be patient and not let destruction rule.  Inviting others to initiate a war is a huge mistake.  Of course, I do not believe that there are Iranians who are waiting for their country to engage in a war, because I believe that no sane person would agree to such a thing.  However, if there are persons or movements who have such plans in mind due to their inconsideration, I hope that they will realize their mistake very soon and that understand that war will not threaten our national interests yet again.  The Iranian people do not have the ability to withstand the consequences of another war imposed on our country.  Such a war could even lead up to Iran’s fragmentation.

Some people or movements inside Iran and abroad believe that following a planned military strike against Iran, regime change is possible.  What is your opinion in this regard?

You know, the issue here is not one of regime change.  The issue here is that proper action must be taken.  It is possible that this regime would fall, but nothing major would change; or the situation may even become worse. It is also possible that people may actually use their intellect and that things may change for the better.  For me, it is not important which regime is in power.  What is important to me is how that regime acts and behaves.  

The rumors indicate that in accordance with a project known as “creating opposition forces” among certain neo-cons in the U.S., the debate on a military attack on Iran is being pursued thoroughly.

Yes, I am familiar with these currents. There are elements that want the U.S. to rain bombs on Iran, so that one of these bombs may hit such and such places or persons. However, the people of Iran will reap no benefits through such a war. Any war that takes place in Iran will definitely result in Iran’s breakup and division.

Ms. Behbahani, let us return to the subject of political prisoners. When we speak of political prisoners, we must also speak of a forgotten part of the equation —the families, especially the wives, of political prisoners. During the time their spouses suffer imprisonment, these brave individuals shoulder all the hardships of life in a male-dominated society.

I definitely agree.  I have said many times that when a person is imprisoned, it is not that person alone who is harmed. That person’s family also suffers the consequences and this affects the entire family’s future. Judges should consider providing the families of those whom they find guilty—though I believe that political prisoners are innocent honorable people—with certain minimum provisions at the time their loved ones are arrested.

Ms. Behbahani, throughout the years you have repeatedly and clearly voiced your views. Have you ever given thought to the possible consequences of this for yourself in Iran?

I have been asked this question many times. I am not out to overthrow any government. I am not a guerilla, nor do I seek destruction. I am a just a person who speaks about matters which I consider to be just, and I have no fear of the Islamic Republic. However, if anyone wishes to silence me, let him come and do it. If someone seeks to blind me, let him do it. I hope that all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience will be freed soon. I hope that this country will experience repose and peace. I hope that the people of this country can be tranquil and that they will be subjected to no unwise pressures. These people can not tolerate any more hardship.