Anglo-Iranian Relations since 1800

Vanessa Martin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134191970
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern History
• Index: History

With contributions from renowned experts in the field, this book provides an excellent background to the history of Anglo-Iranian relations. Focusing on the political and economic relationship of Britain and issues of strategic sensitivity, the book also illuminates British relations with society and the state and describes the interaction between various representatives and agents of both countries.

Anglo-Iranian relations have had a long and complex history, characterized on the one hand by mistrust and intrusion and on the other by mutual exchange and understanding. This book explores the intriguing history of this interactive relationship since 1800, looking at it from a variety of perspectives. Drawing on previously unavailable documents in English and Persian, the book argues that Iran in the nineteenth century had a national state, which strongly defended the national interests.

1

‘Persia’ in the Western Imagination

Ali M. Ansari

‘[H]e entered into a long explanation [. . .] about an ancient infidel who seemed to know a great deal more about our country than any of our own historians; and who, in spite of all we could say to the contrary, had made him and all England believe that we worshipped fire; and, moreover, that we cut our horses’ throats in honour of the sun’.¹

This essay is an investigation into the nature of historical narratives, their relationship, development and proximity to the concept of ‘myth’. As a consequence, the emphasis here will be on the social construction of ‘histories’ rather than ‘History’ in terms of an objective understanding of the past. However, an attempt will be made to show how one of many competing narratives can be rationalized into the dominant ‘grand narrative’, resulting in the marginalization and relegation of other traditions to the realm of myth and fiction. The focus for this paper will be the idea of ‘Persia’ within Western discourse, principally within the English language during the modern period, more specifically (though not exclusively) from the seventeenth to the early nineteenth centuries; the period when the industrial might of the imperial West was beginning to impact upon the old empires of the East. It should be stressed that this paper represents work in progress and is intended as a preliminary case study in the mechanics of narrative construction and appropriation, with a view to outlining some initial arguments on the idea of Persia within Western discourse. These arguments have been prompted by three significant, though quite distinct works: the theoretical critique of ‘Orientalism’ as presented by Edward Said and two papers discussing the often intimate relationship between Persia and the West, both included in The Legacy of Persia, first published in 1953.²

This paper argues that ‘Persia’ is part of the Western imagination. In arguing this position it is important to distinguish between ‘Persia’ as a Western narrative construct emanating from classical perceptions and the indigenous historical traditions of Iran. Although ‘Persia’ is seen as part of the Western ‘grand’ narrative, the historical and archaeological discovery of Iran that took place in the modern period should not simply be interpreted as an act driven by the needs of imperial domination or subjugation, (even though ultimately a process of intellectual colonization accompanied the political and economic aspects of European expansion). It should also be seen as a consequence of the need to discover an aspect of one’s own historical inheritance. No attempt is made here to judge the ‘authenticity’ of each tradition, the emphasis being on the way in which these narratives are related, especially in light of the growth of ‘scientific’ methods of historical inquiry. Attention will be drawn to the manner in which particular myths informed the Western tradition and were paradoxically reinforced by the process of rationalization. It remains a supreme irony that the development of the tools of scientific history in the nineteenth century, through which European scholars sought to identify and legitimize their understanding of biblical and classical historiography, should culminate in the ultimately destructive ideological doctrine of the ‘Aryan myth’.

Analytical Framework

This paper defines ‘history’ as a social construction that is both fluid and contested. As a product of the human imagination and analysis, it must be distinguished from the concept of ‘History’, which will be retained for that which may be understood as the objective and real past. History is therefore the objective reality, while histories that are narrated represent man’s incomplete interpretation of the whole. This is not to argue for either the inherent falsity of narratives, or indeed their relative worth, but simply to state and recognize the limitations of narrative constructions as a product of experiences, ideological convictions and prejudices, as well as the changing nature of method. Narratives may be classified as competing interpretations of a single event and may in time become socialized so that one is recognized as the dominant ‘grand narrative’ describing the origins and development of a single people. Grand narratives are normally (though by no means exclusively) associated with the rise of nationalist narratives in nineteenth-century Europe. Of more interest perhaps, is the category defined as the meta-narrative, which here will be understood as the underlying determinants and themes of social and historical development. Thus the grand narrative may be understood as the superstructure to the meta-narrative’s substructure.

The meta-narrative may also be understood as the historical myths that define, shape and motivate a given society. It is argued here that the relationship between ‘histories’ and ‘myths’ is an intimate one that cannot easily be demarcated and is on the contrary both fluid and reciprocal.³ Indeed, it may be argued that ‘myth’ as a means of conveying a historical tale of moral value and purpose to a given society,⁴ is not only a more apt term to describe pre-modern historical writing but, if the distinction is to be made, is more of social value than the dry retelling of ‘facts’.⁵ Few histories, of course, rely solely on the recapitulation of a series of ‘facts’, and the personal interpretation involved in their collection and dissemination reminds us that myth is an integral part of narrative construction.⁶ Nor should it be assumed that the rise of professional ‘empirical’ history in the nineteenth century resulted in the marginalization of myth.⁷ As the growth of nationalist histories has shown, changes in methodology and the paradoxical rationalization of myth in the service of industrial society simply provided the moral tales of the past with an unprecedented scientific potency.⁸

Just as history enjoys an intimate relationship with myth that may be characterized as different aspects or perspectives of a particular discursive field, so too, it is argued, the dichotomous and distinctive relationship between ‘East’ and ‘West’, suggested by Edward Said in ‘Orientalism’, is unsustainable. The apparent duality of an active West and passive East presented by Said has been extensively critiqued elsewhere.⁹ While the basic premise of the ‘imagining’ of the East which Said articulates is central to the argument of this paper, both the implicit duality and antagonistic relationship outlined in ‘Orientalism’ need qualification. Although duality may serve a mythic function, it should not be interpreted as an epistemological distinction. In other words the ‘other’ is part of the totality of the narrative and an essential – indeed defining – aspect of the ‘self’; in the same way it may be conjectured that the English are defined against the French, though clearly not in a mutually exclusive manner. Not only is there an intimate dialogue between the two, but also ultimately they are defined under a grand narrative of Christian and latterly European identity. In this way, it may be said they share the same origins and, as any student of Anglo-Norman history will tell us, the historian is faced with a distinct blurring of boundaries. A similar relationship may be discerned within American historiography and the centrality of the English (and their history) to the US historical imagination.¹⁰ It follows therefore that, in our case, the ‘Persians’ should not be exclusively considered in terms of the ‘other’ awaiting discovery, investigation, invention and control, but should instead be regarded as part of the totality of the Western narrative, a people familiar to the Western imagination long before the imperatives of empire and, through a curious transformation of the narrative, moved from being an essential ‘other’, to an integral part of the self.

‘Persia’ and the ‘West’

For all the problems in defining the specific influence of the ancient Persians on the cultural and historical development of the classical and Judaic worlds, modern scholarship is increasingly aware and more ready to acknowledge the reality of Persian influence.¹¹ Far from the Hellenic monologue some writers would have us believe, there is now greater acceptance of the dialogic nature of the relationship.¹² That, nevertheless, this is a privilege accorded to pre-Islamic Persia as opposed to post-Islamic Iran, is itself a reflection and product of developments in Western historiography which will be detailed below.

Classical and Judaic authors left a narrative legacy that would permeate the medieval mind and be reinforced by the advent of the Renaissance, which, along with the growth in travel, literacy and publishing, ensured an increasing and fertile audience.¹³ In this age of discovery, dominated by a singular idea of Persia, the Euro-centric superiority of later ages had yet to emerge, and when travellers made their re-acquaintance with the East and, in particular, Persia, they came with both considerable cultural baggage and a healthy sense of admiration. Much has been made of the Sherley brothers’ contribution to the development of Shah Abbas’s artillery and his apparent reliance on the two English adventurers. Considerably less attention is given to Sir Anthony Sherley’s fawning admiration for the King, ‘whom we call barbarous, though from his example we may learn many great and good things’.¹⁴ According to Sherley, Shah Abbas:

is both one of the mightiest Princes that are, and one of the excellentest [sic], for the true virtues of a Prince, that is, or hath been; and having come to this greatness, though by right; yet through the circumstances of the time, and the occasions, which then were, solely his own worthiness, and virtue, made way to his right: besides, the fashion of his Government differing so much from that which we call barbarousness, that it may justly serve for as great an Idea for a Principality, as Plato’s Commonwealth did for a Government, of that sort.¹⁵

Such praise is echoed in the comments of James Fraser more than a century later, who wrote of Nadir Shah that, ‘I could relate many other remarkable Things that I have seen and heard of this great Hero, whose actions already are sufficient to convince the World, that few Ages have produced his Equal’.¹⁶

For all this fascination, these observations were not without criticism, and even Sherley noted that his Persians were not entirely as he had imagined:

yet the nature of those is so vile in themselves, that they are no more, nor longer good, then they are by a strong and wisely tempered hand made so: The Country not being inhabited by those nobly disposed Persians, of which there are but a few, and those few as they ever were.¹⁷

Such sentiments were also reflected in the musings of the Huguenot merchant Sir John Chardin about Persians on whom he lavished praise and condemnation in almost equal measure.¹⁸ Nevertheless, perhaps as a reflection of his mercantile background, as well as his prolonged stay in Isfahan, Chardin is one of the first commentators to try and reconcile the historical tradition of Persia with which he is familiar with that which he had found. He notes for instance that the Persians themselves call their country ‘Iran’, that there is a clear relationship between the ‘modern Persians’ and the Tartars from whom they ‘proceed’, and that they do possess histories of which he appears to have some understanding. While noting that the Persians call their language ‘Sabo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Transliteration
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1. ‘Persia’ in the Western imagination
• 2. Major-General Sir Robert Murdoch Smith KCMG and Anglo-Iranian relations in art and culture
• 3. The clergy and the British: perceptions of religion and the ulama in early Qajar Iran
• 4. The British in Bushehr: the impact of the First Herat War (1838–41) on relations with state and society
• 5. Ordinary people and the reception of British culture in Iran, 1906–41
• 6. The relationship between the British and Abd al-Husain Mirza Farman-Farma during his governorship of Fars, 1916–20
• 7. Britain, the Iranian military and the rise of Reza Khan
• 8. Oil in Iran between the two world wars
• 9. An assessment of the withdrawal of British forces from the Persian Gulf (1971) within the framework of disputed islands
• 10. Anglo-Iranian relations over the disputed islands in the Persian Gulf: constraints on rapprochement
• 11. The restoration of diplomatic relations with Iran, December 1953
• Index