|
An Interview with Hedayatollah Behboudi on Islamic Revolution Historiography(2)
 |
Golshan: You're right! So you believe that oral history outweighs the written one should we study the works released in post-revolution Iran except those which took an analytic approach to the Islamic revolution. Is it possible to say that the oral history and the documents have forced the research on the Islamic revolution to move in a certain direction?
Behboudi: look! It is a possibility raised by some. The reason is that most of these works have been released by the government-run organizations which are said to advance their own understanding of the revolution. To be fair, they are not limited in number while our access to foreign works is limited. You know, almost all the books released by overseas centers working on oral history – both European and American ones- are available in Iran. I mean they are either printed or easily accessed. Moreover, they have been and are cited widely, and there is no problem in this regard. Even if the false claim that we are looking from a specific angle is accepted, that does not mean that we are deprived of these books. Therefore, it is the references on hand that facilitate the study of the Islamic revolution.
Golshan: You seem to have implied that works translated into Persian are regularly revised and updated. They also look at this issue from different angles and present new views. Is it true about the oral history and documents? Can we determine their weak points? What about their strong points?
Behboudi: Oral history became prevalent in Iran due to a number of reasons; the first of which was the nationalist sentiments people and revolutionary officials shared. They had obtained a long-yearned-for jewel and did their best to keep it safe. According to the statistics released by the Foundation of Martyrs and Veteran Affairs, 5500 Iranians sacrificed their lives for the revolution between 1953 and 1979 while 220000 Iranians lost their lives during the Iraqi-imposed war. I mean we paid a heavy toll for safeguarding the revolution. Such a revolution for which enormous sacrifices are made should be recorded in history. The easiest genre which facilitated the realization of this objective was oral history. Both people and officials welcomed this genre warmly. Of course, there were obstacles which were removed. They came and recited their memories. At present, we have a considerable volume of such works. Naturally, the expansion of any work is accompanied by the emergence of shortcomings which grow in proportion to the expansion. Adequate pathological studies have been conducted. Up to now, a number of academic meetings have been convened to study the oral history and address its weak as well as strong points. Anyhow, oral history is based on "I", the narrator's "I" and looks at events from a single angle. This is not favorable in itself, but it is one of the pieces of Islamic revolution jigsaw puzzle. Therefore, we consider oral history to be a source of historiography and a step leading to it.
Golshan: A question came to my mind right now. Oral history is assumed to have involved only the first and second-rate players of the revolution. I mean (only) those who were actively involved had the opportunity to have their memories published. I think an extensive study of the revolution requires the participation of players and observers of third, fourth, fifth, and even lower tiers.
Behboudi: You are now pointing to the second failure. The first one arose from our negligence in theorizing about the Islamic revolution and the second one from our negligence to address the social history of this period. You're right. We failed to address the lower tiers of society while we addressed the great men, great days and great accomplishments of revolution. Once a friend of mine told me that you have published two voluminous books on a small group which came to existence due to armed activity in early 1970s and disappeared a few years after the victory of revolution while you have failed to study a large social tire of cultural, economic, and even sociological significance. We have failed to address our social history and lower tires of the society.
Golshan: What about the documents section? I mean its strong and weak points?
Behboudi: Writers of history can never claim to have all the documents at the ready. There is always some shortcomings, some weak points. But now we have access to an unprecedentedly large volume of documents. I mean the measures recently taken by Mr. Rasoul Ja'farian in the Parliament Library were fabulous. He put most of the documents on the Internet. Most of the manuscripts once hardly-available are now on the Internet. After receiving the documents of Iranian constitution revolution from the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs Archive, the National Library followed suit and put them on the Internet, too.
Golshan: What he did was an incredible achievement!
Behboudi: Unfortunately, I received the sad news of his resignation yesterday. I wish it to be rejected and him to keep on serving as the head of the library. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs Center for Documents and Diplomatic History does its best to offer the documents, but its hardware would be out of order. They have good intentions, indeed. Some people would not approve of the head of Islamic Revolution Documents Center because of his political tendencies, but Mr. Husseinian treats the researchers humanely. You know, I am just naming the entities with which I have cooperated. Moreover, a hard-to-access place like the Ministry of Intelligence has publicized the documents it had collected in its Center of Historical Documents Studies for the past ten or fifteen years.
Golshan: SAVAK?
Behboudi: Yes, SAVAK (The National Intelligence and Security Organization). Put the pieces together and complete the jigsaw puzzle; the research is welcomed! However, there is always something to regret for!
Golshan: Have you ever identified a specific shortcoming while doing such an extensive research? For instance, a document which should have been publicized or something like that?
Behboudi: That's a hard question!
Golshan: Is there an area whose issues have not been completely exposed? Say, the social issues of the revolution!
Behboudi: I can't categorize them. However, I have to name the presidential documents. If you remember, the Office of President began publishing the documents and some 25-30 remarkable books came into print. However, this came to a sudden standstill just due to change of management.
Golshan: Do you mean that change of management led to the standstill?
Behboudi: Yes. The question is why this happened. We were told that there are valuable documents there and simply became deprived of them! Such things make me say that there is always something to regret for! I feel a dire need for the documents which are left unused! There are some shortcomings I hope to be eliminated.
Golshan: As far as I know, you are the member of MAHTAB (Persian acronym for: The National Historiography and Documents Centers Coordination Association). Do the members of MAHTAB discuss the future publication of documents and consider new aspects of research on the Islamic revolution in their regular meetings? Is there a plan or not?
Behboudi: MAHTAB is its Persian acronym. It is, in fact, the association of historical research organizations and information and documents banks and presided by Dr. Salehi who also heads the National Library. As the head of MAHTAB, Dr. Salehi should talk about the association. But as a member, I state that we are now improving our relations and considering avenues of cooperation.
Golshan: As Islamic Revolution Studies Centers?
Behboudi: Yes, we researchers should cooperate with each other. As I told you, we should pass thorough this stage to find the opportunity to serve the society in the near future. It’s just a matter of time!
To be continued…
Translated by: Katayoun Davallou
|
