|
INTRODUCTION
This thesis deals with the history of Iranian Kurdistan during 1 946. This year is a significant moment both in Iranian history in general and in the history of the Kurdish national movement in particular. It was in 1 946 that the Kurdish Republic, with its capital in Mahabad, was formed; by December of the same year it had been severely suppressed by the military forces of the Iranian government. Partly due to the social and political situation in Iran and Kurdistan, there has unfortunately been little in the way of objective and faithful study of these events by the Iranians themselves. There remain many aspects of the actual happenings during the period under study which are unclear and require serious research.
Among the written works on the topic, perhaps the most important is William Eagleton's book: 'The Kurdish Republic of 1946'. The author had access to some primary sources, and was able to interview several people who had been in some way related to the Republic. In the preface he outlines these sources, Persian, Arabs, Turks and Kurds, but stresses that most of the Kurdish soursces preferred to remain anonymous. His narrative is also "based on imperfect memories" because of the destruction of written evidence by Kurds when the Republic collapsed. Given the political situation in Iran following the downfall of the Republic, one would assume that those being interviewed were cautious in their statements. For this reason one must approach their accounts with a certain degree of skepticism.
The same applies to another important source, the article written by Archie Roosevelt Jr., who served as US Assistant Military Attache in Tehran from March 1946 to February 1 947 and was one of the few westerners to witness the Republic. The political orientation of these authors has created a biased outlook in their writings on Kurdistan, particularly where the Soviet Union's role is concerned. The conclusion one would draw from their accounts is that the Kurdish Republic was a Soviet puppet, created by Soviet money and agents.
This thesis seeks to offer a more objective account of the period. Its premise is that, though the Soviet Union did play a role in the events, the Kurdish Republic was not a Soviet plot but came to exist because of a series of internal and external causes.
The main source for this thesis has been the British Foreign Office Reports during the period under study. These reports have their own limitations; most importantly, they were written by officers who were too engaged to be impartial observers of the events, a fact particularly important for their assessment of the Soviet role. During World War II the south of Iran was occupied by British forces, the north by the Soviets. These powers were allies, yet rivalry surely existed between them. The reports are also weakened by the fact that the informants of the British were either the Iranian authorities or Kurdish agents who were at least indifferent if not hostile to the Republic. Thus, the British Foreign Office reports have been used with caution, bearing in mind their limitations. There also exist Iranian sources on the topic, though unfortunately this work has been able to make use of few of them. Some of these materials were written by the Kurds themselves, and thus are also marked by a certain bias.
This thesis does not address the issue of the legitimacy of Kurdistan's claim to a separate state. What it does try to do is to analyse the attempts made by the Kurdish leaders to legitimize their struggle to achieve certain rights as a people. Separate chapters are devoted to explaining the nàture of Kurdish society and the social and political grounds for the formation of a Republic. A brief account is given of the great powers' attitude towards the Republic in particular and the Kurdish question in general. The experience of the Republic during the period of its existence, and the causes of its eventual downfall, are also analysed. Although some features of the events of 1946 in Kurdistan will hopefully have been clarified thereby, other questions will remain unanswered, and must be the subject of more thorough research.
For transliteration of Persian words, a simple yet consistent method has been attempted. Since most of the sources for this work were in the English language, most of the Persian words mentioned here are, with a few exceptions, taken from these sources. Therefore, some mistransliterations may have been transferred to this work. However, an attempt has been made to compare Persian words appearing in English language documents with their Persian
Chapter I: General Information About Kurdistan
The Geography, Population and Culture of Kurdistan
The term 'Kurdistan' is a geographic expression with no legal or international standing. There has never been an independent state of Kurdistan in the history of the modern Middle East. The territory known as Kurdistan is divided among Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. There is also a small minority of Kurds living in the Soviet Union. There is however no clear consensus on Kurdistan's borders. On most maps of the Middle East, Kurdistan is marked as a mountainous area stretching from south-east Turkey across the most northern parts of Iraq into Iran's mid-western region. But the territory claimed as Kurdistan by most Kurdish sources is much larger. For example, A. Ghassemlou defines the borderlines of Kurdistan as follows:
A straight line starting at Mount Ararat in the north-east leading southward and reaching as far as the southern part of Zagros and Pishtkuh, from this point, we draw a straight line westward as far as Mosul in Iraq; then a straight line westward from Mosul to the area of the Turkish part of Iskandarum, from this point a line in the north-eastern direction as far as Erzerum in Turkey, from Erzerum eastwards as far as Mount Ararat.1
Thus, with this definition, the entire area of Kurdistan would cover approximately 409,650km of which …
1) Abdul-Rahman Ghassemlou, Kurdistan and the Kurds, London: Collet's, 1 965, p. 1 4
| 
