Iran and Red and Black Colonization

"Iran and Red and Black Colonization" was an article written by "Ahmad Rashidi Motlagh" published in Ettela'at newspaper on 7 January 1978 (17 Dey 1356 SH or 2536 Shahanshahi). The article was used to attack Ruhollah Khomeini, who later founded the Islamic Republic of Iran. It led to the 1978 Qom protest.

Background and translated excerpt
The hostilities between Iran and Iraq ended with a treaty proposed in 1975. Iranians were allowed to travel to Iraq in 1976. As result, many tapes and writings of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was in exile in Iraq, were brought into Iran. Disapproval of the Shah was increasing in Iranian mosques. People were demanding that the Constitution of 1906/07 be fully restored. Articles in the constitution included: the right to free elections, a government responsible to the elected legislative body or the Majles, a Shah with limited authority, and a committee of Mujtahids to veto bills not deemed to be in accord with Muslim law.

In October 1977, the mysterious death of Khomeini's son Mostafa caused the people's dissatisfaction to grow, in part because journalists Nikki Keddie and Yann Richard attributed his death to SAVAK, Iran's secret police. In January 1978, in an attempt to reduce religious opposition inciting people against the Shah, the Iranian newspaper Ettela'at published an article entitled "Iran and Red and Black Colonization" which attacked Ruhollah Khomeini. The article was published one week after a speech by President Jimmy Carter in which he referred to Iran as an "island of stability" in one of the more troubled areas of the world: It was not difficult to find such a man [...] They had found him, a man with an unclear past. He belonged to the most reactionary and fundamentalist classes. Despite foreign support, he did not wield any influence whatsoever, and longed therefore for an opportunity, to dedicate himself to political adventurism and hoped to gain fame in this way. Ruhollah Khomeini was the most suitable character which red and black colonialism could have possibly found. The shameful events of 1963 are to be counted against his conscience [...] and his name survives in living memory entirely due to the shameful events of 1963. In that time he attempted to execute the plans of red and black colonialism, by revolting against land reform, against the emancipation of women and the nationalization of the forests, thereby costing the lives of innocent people.

A few weeks before the revolt it became known in Tehran that an Arab adventurer by the name of Mohammad Tofigh al-Gheisi had been apprehended with ten million Rial in cash, being carried in his briefcase. That cash was to have been transferred to certain individuals.

Thankfully, the Iranian revolution succeeded. The resistance of the landlords and elements of the Tudeh Party was crushed and the ground leveled for the creation of the path toward progress and social justice. The events of 1963, however, will remain a painful memory in the history of Iran. Millions of believers will not forget, how the enemies of the nation united when their interests so demanded, even if they found themselves taking the form of the clergy. -- Ettela'at Newspaper, 7th of January, 1978.

Events
On 4 January 1978, the article "Iran and Red and Black Colonization" was sealed in the Imperial Court and sent from Prime Minister Amir-Abbas Hoveyda, who is thought to have written it, to Information Minister Daryush Homayun for publication in one of Iran's newspapers. The regime saw the article as a way to attack its religious opponents. It was published on 7 January 1978 in Ettela'at, printed in red ink on page 7 in the section known as "Comments and Ideas". The article contained offensive content about Ayatollah Khomeini, who was described as a foreign agent. Khomeini was attacked as an adventurer who was faithless and devoted to colonialism. The article described him as an Indian Sayyed who had lived for some time in India, and had contact with British colonial centres. The article was written at the Imperial Court based on documents that had been collected by SAVAK. Because the original text of the article was relatively tame, the Shah had allegedly ordered it to be rewritten and its tone had then become more insulting.

Ahmad Rashidi Motlagh was the fictitious name of the author of "Iran and Red and Black Colonization". According to Bahman Baktiari, the main authors of the article were Daryush Homayun and Farhad Nikukhah, a low-ranking ministry official. The day that the article was published fell on the anniversary of the unveiling when Reza Shah had declared the law banning women from wearing the hijab.

Reaction
One day after the publication of the article, it was met with huge protests in Qom. Classes at Qom's seminary were cancelled. People went to the homes of Marja' in Tehran and Qom to show their support. In the evening, at the Azam mosque of Qom, they chanted slogans such as "Long live Khomeini" and "Death to the Pahlavi regime".

On 9 January, the protests continued and grew larger. The Bazaar was closed. In the afternoon, police began firing into the crowd killing and injuring many people. The day after the shootings, people gathered to protest and to commemorate the deaths in many Iranian cities including: Tabriz, Yazd, Isfahan, Shiraz, Jahrom, and Ahwaz.

The article's publication was generally recognized as the beginning of the Iranian Revolution and four hundred days later the Pahlavi dynasty was overthrown. This article had the effect of placing Khomeini at the center of the revolutionary movement.

Full English Translation
Ettela'at Newspaper Shanbeh, 17 Dey 2536 Shahanshahi

Iran and the Red and Black Colonialism

by Ahmad Rashidi Motlagh

"These days, marked by the observance of the month of Muharram and Hosseini Ashura, minds are again turning towards the concept of black and red colonialism, or alternatively, the alliance of ancient and modern colonialism.

Red and black colonialism, both in its traditional and modern manifestations, embodies the spirit of invasion, domination, and plunder. Despite their inherent characteristics being similar, it's rare for these two historically recognized forms of colonialism to collaborate, except in specific cases. One such case is the close, sincere, and cordial cooperation of both types of colonialism against the Iranian revolution, particularly against the progressive land reform program in Iran.

The initiation of the Shah and People revolution on January 26, 1962, saw the unification of red and black colonial powers against Iran, each apparently having specific plans and designs in our country. This alliance was clearly manifested in Tehran's unrest on June 5th and 6th, 1963.

After the ominous June 5th unrest, orchestrated to stop and undermine the shining Shah and People revolution, initially left those studying the incident in strange confusion. This was because the footprint of black colonialism and, elsewhere, the fingerprint of red colonialism were clearly seen in this turmoil.

On the one hand, the Tudeh Party agents, who saw their hopes of deceiving peasants and establishing 'Peasant Associations' dashed by the land reform program, rebelled against the revolution. On the other hand, the large landowners, who had long plundered millions of Iranian peasants, supported the Tudeh Party agents and other bankrupt political figures in hopes of overturning the program and reverting to the former status quo. Interestingly, this group, believing they could halt the progress of the revolution and reclaim the lands distributed to peasants, sought the intervention of the clergy. They believed that the clergy's opposition, highly respected in Iranian society, could complicate the revolutionary program and lead, as one large landowner thought, to peasants returning the lands as 'usurped.' However, the clergy were more prudent than to oppose the Shah and People revolution, which aligned with Islamic principles and aimed to establish justice and end individual exploitation as designed by the leader of Iran's revolution.

The landowners, who had always had gendarmes, ministers, religious eulogists, and thugs at their disposal to maintain their rule, faced the clergy's indifference and the resulting difficulty in creating opposition against the revolution. With prominent clerics unwilling to cooperate, they sought to find a 'cleric' who was adventurous, unfaithful, and subservient to colonial centers, especially one who was ambitious, to serve their purposes, and they easily found such a person.

A man whose past was shrouded in mystery, tied to the most conservative and regressive elements of colonialism, and despite having special backing, had not been able to attain a position among the country's esteemed clergy, was seeking an opportunity to insert himself into political affairs and gain notoriety at any price.

Ruhollah Khomeini was deemed a fitting agent for this purpose, and the red and black reactionaries considered him the most suitable individual to counter Iran's revolution. He was recognized as the instigator of the infamous June 5th event.

Ruhollah Khomeini, known as 'Sayyed Hindi,' still has no explanation from even his closest associates regarding his association with India. According to one account, he spent some time in India and established connections with British colonial establishments there, leading to his nickname 'Indian Sayyed.' Another theory is that he wrote romantic poems in his youth and adopted the pseudonym 'Hindi,' hence becoming known by this name.

Some also believe that since his education took place in India, he adopted the surname 'Hindi' for this reason, as he had been under the instruction of an Indian teacher since his childhood.

What is certain is that his notoriety as the instigator of the June 5th turmoil has remained in everyone's memory - the man who committed himself against Iran's revolution and, to further the objectives of red and black colonialism, aligned with specific and recognized agents against land distribution, women's freedom, and the nationalization of forests. He entered the struggle, spilled the blood of the innocent, and demonstrated that there are still those who are ready to sincerely align themselves with conspirators and nationalistic elements.

To uncover the roots of the June 5th incident and the role of its main protagonist, attention should be paid to the content of a report, a statement, and an interview, which will be of effective assistance.

A few weeks before the June 5 incident, OPEC released a report stating that 'the British government's oil revenue from Iran was several times more than the total money accrued to Iran at that time.'

A few days before the incident, a statement was revealed in Tehran disclosing that an Arab adventurer named 'Mohammed Tawfik al-Qaisi' had been arrested at Mehrabad Airport with a suitcase containing 10 million Rials in cash, intended to be placed at the disposal of specific individuals.

A few days after the incident, the then-prime minister revealed in a press conference: 'It is clear to us that money was coming from abroad, reaching the hands of individuals, and being distributed among various factions to implement wicked plans.' Fortunately, Iran's revolution prevailed, and the last resistance of large landowners and Tudeh Party agents was crushed, paving the way for progress, excellence, and the implementation of the principles of social justice.

In the history of Iran's revolution, June 5 will remain a painful reminder of the enemies of the Iranian nation. Millions of Iranian Muslims will recall how Iran's enemies conspire together whenever their interests dictate, even under the sacred and respected guise of the clergy."

Military c code

 * Darioush Homayoon : The writer of the article Rashidi Motlagh was Ali Shabani