Farrokh Khan

Farrokh Khan (1812 – 5 May 1871), also known as Amin ol-Dowleh (امین‌الدوله), was a high-ranking Iranian official from the Ghaffari family. Between 1855–1857, he served as the Iranian ambassador to the French court in Paris, where he assisted in signing the Treaty of Paris, thus ending the losing Anglo-Persian War and withdrawing the Iranian army from Herat.

Farrokh Khan began his career at the court as a personal assistant to the Qajar shah (king) Fath-Ali Shah ((r. 1797 – 1834)). In 1833, he took part in the siege of Herat under the crown prince Abbas Mirza and later suppressed uprisings in Mazandaran, Isfahan, and Gilan. He documented the Iranian army's actions during the 1838 siege of Herat and became the national tax collector in 1850. Appointed as the personal treasurer of Naser al-Din Shah in 1854, he was given the title of Amin ol-Molk in 1856. Farrokh Khan negotiated with British diplomats in Paris during Iran's conflict with Britain over Herat and later signed the Treaty of Paris in 1857, which ended the war and required Iran to leave Herat and abandon all claims to Afghanistan. He also established diplomatic ties with the United States, engaged with European nations, and promoted educational progress by persuading Naser al-Din Shah to send 42 students abroad to Europe.

Over the course of his over two-year diplomatic mission, Farrokh Khan instructed his secretary Hoseyn Sarabi to assist him in writing a diary of his trips, titled Makhzan ol-Vaqaye ("The Treasury of Events"). Initially unpublished, this travelogue caught the attention of the Qajar Shah and other Iranian court members, and eventually became crucial for historians exploring the international politics of that period. Scholars have found Farrokh Khan's interactions with Western dignitaries, including Napoleon III, Leopold I of Belgium, and Queen Victoria, along with his detailed diplomatic narratives, to be of high importance.

In Tehran, Kashan, and other places, Farrokh Khan led various building projects, including the Aminoddole Carvansarai in Kashan, which has been described as "a splendid example of Persian architecture." He died from a heart attack on 5 May 1871, and was buried in the Fatima Masumeh Shrine in Qom.

Background
Born in 1812, Farrokh Khan was part of the prominent Ghaffari family of Kashan, which had produced government officials, artists and jurists. He was the son of a certain Mohammad Mehdi, and had three brothers; Nezam-al-Din Mohandes-al-Mamalek Ghaffari, Abdol-Vahhab Hakem-Bashi and Mirza Masud. He was the great-nephew of the painter and historian Abu'l-Hasan Mostawfi Ghaffari and cousin of the painters Abu'l-Hasan Sani al-Mulk, Abu Torab Ghaffari and Kamal-ol-molk.

Early career
During his childhood, he was part of the court of the Qajar shah (king) Fath-Ali Shah ((r. 1797 – 1834)), where he served as the shahs personal assistant. In the summer of 1833, under the orders of the crown prince Abbas Mirza, Farrokh Khan participated in the siege of Herat, led by the Qajar prince Mohammad Mirza (later known by his regnal name Mohammad Shah, (r. 1834 – 1848)). Mohammad Shah dispatched Farrokh Khan to Mazandaran in 1836, where he suppressed a local uprising. He was dispatched to Isfahan the next year and Gilan in 1839 to deal with similar problems.

While attending the siege of Herat in 1838, Farrokh Khan compiled a review on the actions of the Iranian army under the orders of Mohammad Shah. In 1850, he was appointed as the tax collector of the whole country by Mirza Taqi Khan (the future Amir Kabir). In 1854, Farrokh Khan was appointed as the personal treasurer of Naser al-Din Shah Qajar ((r. 1848 – 1896)). In May 1856, he was given the title of Amin ol-Molk.

Diplomatic mission in Europe
In 1855, as part of his two-pronged strategy of military operations and diplomacy, Mohammad Shah sent Farrokh Khan as an ambassador to the court in Paris, when Iran was in a conflict with Britain and besieging Herat for the third time. His mission was to discuss Iran's demands for the end of the Herat campaign with the British diplomats in Paris and Constantinople. He was also instructed to approach the United States for military assistance and a loan. In October 1856, Herat was conquered by the Iranian army with the assistance of the tunnels dug by the French army engineer M. Buhler.

However, the Iranian success proved brief. Negotiations in Constantinople soon broke down, leading to intrusion on the Iranian city of Bushehr by a large contingent of British and Indian troops in December 1856. In February 1857, they defeated the Iranian army at the Battle of Khushab. Naser al-Din Shah and his grand vizier Mirza Aqa Khan Nuri ordered Farrokh Khan to accept the extreme British demands for peace and the ultimate restoration of diplomatic relations, as they were burdened with an empty war treasury and a chance of political disaster. Farrokh Khan signed the Treaty of Paris on 4 March 1857. This put an end to the war, forcing the Iranian army to leave Herat, relinquish all claims to Afghanistan and acknowledge their independence. In return, the British government pledged to use its power to mediate disputes between Afghanistan and Iran. The British strategic interests in Afghanistan, an early consequence of the Great Game, ultimately brought an end to Qajar hopes to preserve Herat as a frontier vassalage, after more than fifty years of Iranian engagement. Three and a half centuries of nearly continuous, although frequently chaotic, inclusion of Herat as part of Iran came to an end with the Treaty of Paris.

Similar to how the Treaty of Turkmenchay with Russia in 1828 marked a turning point in relations between Iran and Russia, so too did the Treaty of Paris with Iran and Britain. The Qajar government realized the serious repercussions of confronting a European colonial power militarily after the conflict in Herat. The Iranians realized that in the age of empires, they would have to endure losing territory on its outskirts in order to protect its center. The loss of Herat, akin to the earlier loss of the Caucasian provinces, illustrated the limitations on authority over territories that were historically and culturally part of Greater Iran. Despite their deep-rooted ties, these areas could no longer be sustained as provinces within the Guarded Domains of Iran.

According to the Iranologist Abbas Amanat, Farrokh Khan was the biggest factor for the "relative leniency" of the treaty, stating that he "was a man of caution and common sense who sustained his consistency and composure in spite of the premier's vacillations, the shah's sunken morale, and British intransigence." The French emperor Napoleon III, his minister of foreign affairs, Alexandre Colonna-Walewski, and other French diplomats also helped the Iranians with the negotiations. Napoleon III, possibly being altruistic, persuaded Farrokh Khan to make a quick settlement by claiming that the British would do everything it took to achieve their goals in Afghanistan.

Naser al-Din Shah was aware of the war's domestic effects to some extent. He encouraged Farrokh Khan to personally approach Queen Victoria, pleading with her to grant his "friendly request" and return thirty guns that had been looted as war booty from the Iranian army in Bushehr and Mohammerah. According to Amanat, this displayed Naser al-Din Shah's "concern for royal prestige." Farrokh Khan declined his request, considering it improper and at contrast with global norms. He responded by advising Naser al-Din Shah to have "Power and discipline, so that all nations will see how far the government of Iran cares for the organization of its army, the development of the country, the tranquility of its subjects, and the fortification of its ports." Amanat adds that Farrokh Khan's rejection was "a sad reflection of the contrast between the world the shah knew and the world his envoy had come to know."

Farrokh Khan had made friendship treaties with various European nations during stay in Europe, where Mirza Malkam Khan served as his advisor due to his knowledge of French and Paris. The first diplomatic ties between Iran and the United States were established in December 1856 due to his efforts. Farrokh Khan also became a member of the Freemasonic organization Grand Orient de France after being greatly inspired by the political, social, and technological advancements of the European nations.

Once Farrokh Khan reached Constantinople on his way back to Iran, Mirza Aqa Khan Nuri's manoeuvres caused him to be delayed. Mirza Malkam Khan, who had already departed for Iran, had contributed to Mirza Aqa Khan Nuri's suspicions, which was that Farrokh Khan would become a powerful competitor for the position of grand vizier due to his successful diplomatic mission in Europe. In 1858, Farrokh Khan was back in Tehran, where he was given a special welcoming ceremony by Naser al-Din Shah.

Later career
In December 1858, Farrokh Khan was appointed as the Minister in Presence (chamberlain), holder of the personal seal of the shah, and the leader of the Imperial servants. With the belief that advancement was imperative for Iran, Farrokh Khan convinced Naser al-Din Shah to send 42 students to Europe receive instruction in science and technology under the supervision of prominent Persophile Aleksander Chodźko.

In April 1859, Farrokh Khan was appointed as the minister of interior and given the title of given the title of Amin ol-Dowleh. Farrokh Khan gave Naser al-Din Shah a pamphlet titled "Suggested Reforms for the Improvement of the Administration and the Army and for the Establishment of a Parliament and a Cabinet" that was authored under his own name, though it was likely written by Mirza Malkam Khan. Farrokh Khan was also given the task of mentoring for Naser al-Din Shah's eldest son Mass'oud Mirza Zell-e Soltan. In the same year, Farrokh Khan became part of the council of state. He was considered "the most influential man" by Sir Henry Rawlinson, who was the British ambassador in Tehran from 1859 to 1860. He was also described as "a very clever statesman" by the French ambassador Arthur de Gobineau.

With the new British minister Charles Alison and the legation secretary Edward Eastwick, Farrokh Khan conducted important negotiations about Bahrain. Although Naser al-Din Shah initially considered Farrokh Khan for the position of grand vizier in 1866, he ultimately appointed Mirza Mohammad Khan Sepahsalar. In May 1866, Farrokh Khan was once again given the position of Minister in Presence as well as the governorship of Isfahan, Fars, central Iran, and head of the customs department. In the early spring of 1867, he was appointed as the minister of the court.

In Tehran, Kashan, and other places, Farrokh Khan constructed numerous caravanserai, bazaars, homes, and mosques. His Aminoddole Carvansarai in Kashan is described by the Iranian historian F. Gaffary as "a splendid example of Persian architecture." Farrokh Khan died from a heart attack on 5 May 1871, and was buried in the Fatima Masumeh Shrine in Qom. He was survived by three sons. Two of them—Mohammad Ebrahim Ghaffari and Mehdi Ghaffari Qa'em-Maqam—became distinguished figures.

Travelogue
Over the course of his over two-year diplomatic mission, Farrokh Khan instructed his secretary Hoseyn Sarabi to assist him in writing a diary of his trips titled Makhzan ol-Vaqaye ("The Treasury of Events"). Initially unpublished, this travelogue caught the attention of the Qajar Shah and other Iranian court members, and eventually became crucial for historians exploring the international politics of that period. Scholars have found Farrokh Khan's interactions with Western dignitaries, including Napoleon III, Leopold I of Belgium, and Queen Victoria, along with his detailed diplomatic narratives, to be of high importance.

The travelogue was first published in 1982, consisting of two volumes. Farrokh Khan's diplomatic mission is described in the first, and the legislative and administrative structures of the European nations are described in the second. It is unclear how much of an impact Hoseyn Sarabi had on the manuscript in comparison to Farrokh Khan, but he functions as a kind of ghost writer and frequently avoids making personal opinions known in his work. Parts of the book, however, only mention events that Hoseyn Sarabi could have known about from Farrokh Khan's accounts and did not physically take part in (such as Farrokh Khan's travels in Prussia and Italy). Farrokh Khan may have been more involved as the sections detailing these events are similar in tone and structure to the other sections of the travelogue. The travelogue's principal readers were the nobles and the shah. This meant that Farrokh Khan had to stay away from a lot of subjects and adhere to particular cultural norms, such the occasional lines glorifying the shah.

Farrokh Khan was optimistic about the future of his country and expressed his respect for the English and Europeans in general for their forward-thinking and thoughtful approach to building a better society. He supported the claims of a French merchant, who was considering doing business in Iran; "Nowadays, it is widely known throughout Europe that the government of Iran has, in a short period of time, made as much progress as is possible in fifty years and, of course, in a short period hence will regain its status as one of the greatest governments in the world." According to the Iranologist M. R. Ghanoonparvar; "Such optimism should perhaps be expected of a high-ranking official of the Iranian government at the time, who was becoming increasingly aware of the progress in the West compared to the backward conditions in Iran and wished for such advancements in Iran as well."

Farrokh Khan's travelogue contains remarkably little information about actions that would be deemed inappropriate in his society, in contrast to other travelogues from the era. A toast honoring the shah is mentioned, but otherwise there is no discussion of prostitution, eroticization of women and their relationships with other men, or alcohol. According to the Iranian historian Vahid Vahdat; "Given the close observation and detailed descriptions of other matters in the memoir, it seems unlikely that this silence is accidental. The concealment of issues that fascinated most other travelers is probably best explained by Farrokh Khan's prominent position in the court and his need to avoid the hint of scandal. In addition, the text’s obsession with propriety hints at its author’s intention to bypass censorship when publishing the book – an effort that eventually fell short."

Nevertheless, the travelogue was ultimately banned by Mirza Aqa Khan Nuri, who sent Farrokh Khan a letter which said the following; ""I have heard that Hoseyn Sarabi, the secretary of the grand ambassador, has written a book, under your supervision, about the details of your trip to Europe, and that he intends to publish it in Tabriz. I should remind you that during his mission, Saif el-Mulk also decided to publish a similar book with the objective to educate people on the differences between the state of affairs in Iran and Europe, with which I disagreed. Certainly, you should not allow Hoseyn Sarabi to publish this book and distribute it all over. This will cause public awareness about Europe which is not appropriate.""

Vahdat adds that "In addition to moral qualms, it seems likely that the officials of the court were concerned about the development of any "public awareness" of Farangestan that might seem to confirm Iran’s backwardness and contribute to skepticism about the power of the regime."