The Shah Afghanistan/Iran wrt women

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

According to the Radio Free Europe, America once again is getting behind a monarch in the Islamic world.

Progress has been made in U.S.-led efforts to involve Afghanistan’s former king in a transition role to establish an alternative government to the Taliban. Agreement was reached yesterday in Rome between the ex-king and the opposition Northern Alliance on a program to replace the Islamic militia.

According to the The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan The ex-king is the best bet for the women of Afganistan.

Sajeda: We are in favor of the former king of Afghanistan (Zahir Shah). He now lives in Rome, Italy. He was the king of Afghanistan for 40 years. From our point of view, he is not a desirable person for a future government. But people compare today’s situation in Afghanistan with the time when he was the king, and the people of Afghanistan at least had their basic rights. That time was really a paradise compared to what’s happening today.

Now according tothis Iranian site, women under the Shah were rapidly achieving equality with men.

The struggle for women’s rights in Iran has been closely associated with the Pahlavi dynasty. Reza Shah dramatically abolished the veil, which he saw as the emblem of an obsolete tradition, gave women equal educational opportunities, established the girl guide movement, and encouraged women to work outside the home.

His son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and immediate family continued to struggle for the full emancipation of women, and Iranian women up to 1979 did enjoy a high degree of equality with men.

The most important advancement of women’s rights occurred in 1963 when as part of the reform of the electoral law they were given the right to vote and to run for any elected office. In the last parliamentary elections during the Shah’s reign, over one million women voted, and out of 99 women candidate 19 were elected to the Majlis and two to the Senate

I see a similarity between Afghanistan and Iran that should be considered when evaluating future US policy in the region. Both countries

• non arab
  -islamic
  -same region (adjacent)
  -had former monarchies
  -had histories of leading the islamic world with regard to women’s rights
  -presently ruled by “islamic law”
  -presently cruel to dissidents and women. (stoning women for adultery for example)

**Now if America supports the ex-King, won’t the inevitable result be similar to what happenned in Iran?

Or should we consider the fact that Jimmy Carter (the human rights president) abandoned support for the Shah of Iran and thereby sacrificed the rights of women in Iran?**

The latter question has certainly never been brought up before. It always amazes me that many people who criticize American involvement in foreign affairs suggest that self determination is the answer to the ills of foreign countries, yet ignore the virtual slavery that half the population is experiencing. I don’t see any easy answers here, but plenty of meat for debate.

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by grienspace *
**Now if America supports the ex-King, won’t the inevitable result be similar to what happenned in Iran?

Or should we consider the fact that Jimmy Carter (the human rights president) abandoned support for the Shah of Iran and thereby sacrificed the rights of women in Iran? **

Why would the inevitable result be similar to what happened in Iran? The Shah of Iran was pretty universally disliked in 1979, while the same isn’t true for the Afghan king.

The status of women in Iran, while not great, and in many ways worse than they were before the revolution, is also not comparable to their status under the Taliban. Women are allowed to work, have an education, be out in public, etc.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

*Originally posted by Captain Amazing *
Why would the inevitable result be similar to what happened in Iran? The Shah of Iran was pretty universally disliked in 1979, while the same isn’t true for the Afghan king.

Well I would suggest that the islamic clerics were primarily behind the views and demonstrations against the Shah.

• http://persepolis.free.fr/iran/history/pahlavi.html#post-mossadegh*
  In spite of his reforms, the Shah’s rule was criticized as corrupt and oppressive. Savak, his secret police, arrested and imprisoned thousands of dissidents. The most serious opposition came from Islamic fundamentalists.

Captain Amazing
The status of women in Iran, while not great, and in many ways worse than they were before the revolution, is also not comparable to their status under the Taliban. Women are allowed to work, have an education, be out in public, etc. **

Whoop de doo. Check this

http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/01/iran0123.htm
In a letter to the Guardian Council, Human Rights Watch’s Academic Freedom Committee denounced the decision to block a parliamentary bill that would have extended to Iranian women the same rights as men to study at universities abroad. Currently, women can study abroad - but only with permission from a male guardian, and only men can receive financial assistance for studying overseas.

Yeah, women are allowed provided they get the Okay from a “male guardian”.

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by grienspace *
**
Yeah, women are allowed provided they get the Okay from a “male guardian”. **

Yeah, but they’re allowed to go to secondary school, and to Iranian colleges.

Afghan women aren’t allowed to leave the house.

Kind of the difference between “Ow! You’ve stepped on my foot!” and “Ow! You’ve put a sword in my belly!”

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

Well then I suppose Afghan women shouldn’t complain when compared to Pakistani and Indian women subject to honour killings by male members of their family. Sorry, but to have your adult life controlled by another human being is not freedom or democracy. It is slavery, and to overcome it in that part of the world will require measures such as supporting a monarch that is not popular with the vocal visible and violent male segments of the population. If we support the king of Afghanistan, then we can forget about an exit strategy unless we don’t mind taking a significant risk of allowing Islamic fundamentalists to enslave women again, as has happened in Iran.

[Guinastasia]

I don’t know if this counts for anything, but the Shah’s youngest daughter, Princess Leila, committed suicide at the age of 31 recently.

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by grienspace *
** If we support the king of Afghanistan, then we can forget about an exit strategy unless we don’t mind taking a significant risk of allowing Islamic fundamentalists to enslave women again, as has happened in Iran. **

Well, the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan are enslaving women now…that’s the difference. Back when the king of Afghanistan was still king, then under the republic after him, and even under the communists after that, the rights of women kept on increasing. The Taliban is an aberration in Afghan history, and in all likelyhood, whether the country winds up a constitutional monarchy, which is what we seem to be pushing for, or a republic, women will in all likelyhood have rights restored to them that were taken away by the Taliban.

[Tamerlane]

Grienspace: Actually the Shah was in fact pretty universally despised and not just by the Islamic traditionalists and their supporters in the lumpen proletariat. The educated, secular middle-class loathed him as well. Iran under the Pahlavis was very much an oligarchy, with the bulk of the wealth and poltical clout being concentrated in a psuedo-nobility known as the ‘100 Families’. Nepotism and patronage was the name of the game, with the Shah’s infamous secret police, the SAVAK, stifling everyone else ( often violently ).

By the time the revolution broke out there were a hodgepodge of different groups, including secular Marxists, Islamic leftists, traditional Islamists ( Khomeini, et al ), Western-educated Islamists ( Bani Sadr, et al ), minority ethnic groups ( Kiurds, Baluchis, Turcomans ), old National Front folks ( Mossadeq’s former people ), various student groups, lawyer groups ( gotta love those lawyers ), and plenty of others, all working to bring down the Shah ( sometimes in concert with each other ). And women were involved significantly involved in virtually all these groups ( to the point of participating in armed struggle ).

Nope, this was truly a popular revolution, launched from every class but the upper. Quite unlike the overthrow of the Afghan monarchy, which was essentially a military coup.

My primary Islamic History professor was Iranian, from a secular, highly-educated middle-class family in Tehran ( where they mostly still live and where he visits every summer ), and people in his circle couldn’t stand the Shah and felt the revolution was absolutely necessary. Now he’s no friend of current theocracy either - In some ways he thinks it’s even worse. But he said point blank it would not be worthwhile trading back for the Shah. 'course he has his own biases, but most other analyses I’ve seen seem to bear his opinions out.

A good piece of recommended reading on this subject, is Roots of Revolution, An Interpretive History of Modern Iran, by Nikki Keddie ( 1981, Yale University Press ).

• Tamerlane