ヘイダル・ハーンの事績再考(<特集>イラン世界とその周辺地域-その形成と展開)
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
Heydar Khan 'Amu Ughli, who was born on 20 December 1880 in the city of Orumiye of Iranian Azerbaijan, migrated at the age of six to Southern Caucasus with his family, and there after receiving a basic education emigrated to Mashhad as an electrical engineer of the Emam Reza Shrine, on the invitation by Mozaffar od-Din Shah who was on his way back to Iran from his royal tour of Europe. Later with the rise of the Constitutional movement while laying the foundations of the Social Democratic Organization in Tehran, he is reported to have played a pivotal role in certain major political atrocities during the Constitutional Revolution. Due to punitive measures taken by the government of Sepandar-e A'zam, which had been formed in March 1911, he was expelled from Iran and went over to Europe, where during the First World War in cooperation of the German military authorities, he was involved in military operations against the Allied forces deployed in Iran. Then he shifted the stage for his activities to post October-Revolutionary Russia and committed himself to the communist movements in Turkistan and Caucasus, having established links with Russian and Azerbaijani Bolsheviks. Finally in October 1921 he was supposedly killed by a group of Mirza Kuchek Khan the leader of Jangalis, owing to his involvement in the inner conflicts of the so-called Gilan Republic. Two utterly different views have emerged over his eventful and multi-faceted life. A number of ex-Soviet historians and activists of the Tude Pary considered him a pioneer among Iranian 'orthodox Bolsheviks', while most of his Iranian biographers are inclined to portray him as 'a Muslim and a nationalist'. About fifteen years ago I published an article on Heydar Khan, where, through reconstructing his trails by relying on sources available at the time even though highly fragmentary, and from aspects of his activity patterns, thoughts, and personal network, I concluded that he was a revolutionary, stationed at a point where nationalism and socialism intersect. However, the research situation on this subject has dramatically changed, chiefly because Russian documents that were inaccessible when I wrote the article are now at our disposal, and besides, German and Persian documents too are now more easily procurable. Therefore, in this article I seek to furnish the so far unknown details related to his life and activities by basing myself partly on the archival material that I have so far gathered, and also on the research achievements that have been made since then. First, on the basis of the Persian documents preserved in the Iranian National Archives and Library, it has come to light that even after the issue of the order of expulsion he was not treated as a deported culprit escorted by the police. Rather, he conducted himself like an agitator and organizer of the Democratic Party as before, in the course of his journey via Qom, Kashan and Esfahan to the place of his departure. In Germany too he complied with the intentions and decisions of the 'Persian Committee' in Berlin whose president H.Taqizade led the Democratic Party with the support of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but he seemed to assert the independency of his political and military plan from the German authorities, more than the Berlin Committee. Moreover in revolutionary Russia he kept contact with Iranian emigrants in Turkistan and Caucasus as well as Moscow and represented the nationalist-tinged 'right wing' in the context of the fierce controversy among the Iranian communists, and he tried to take the offensive against the dominant 'leftists' led by A. Sultanzade on the occasion of the First Congress of Eastern Peoples held in Baku. Though later he appeared to succeed in taking control of the Iranian Communist Party, it was proved from Russian documents that in defiance of the policies of the Russian and Azerbaijani Bolshevik leadership, he devoted himself to the Gilani revolutionary movement and arrived at his tragic death. In conclusion, we would not be mistaken to assume that he was rather a nationalistic revolutionary, particularly when seen from the standpoint of the political criteria of the Bolsheviks of that time. In other words, it is supposed that he did not deviate much from the trend of social democracy since the Constitutional Revolution, even if he was not a genuine communist in disguise, as his antagonists repeatedly pointed out.