Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Nothing wrong with posting stuff about Afghans on your blog. What was wrong was the title there which was afghan women warriors.Female warriors of Lurestan, Iran
- Thread starter Marwat Khan Lodhi
- Start date
Nothing wrong with posting stuff about Afghans on your blog. What was wrong was the title there which was afghan women warriors.
he-man
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2013
- Messages
- 11,018
- Reaction score
- -28
- Country
- Location
Psycho Pakistani
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2014
- Messages
- 732
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
That seems to be the most important factor than any other factor.
Last edited:
Agreed, though in world one also need modern tech. I don't want Pak to become nation of dumb warriors who glorify history while taking beating right now with their antique tech.
Psycho Pakistani
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2014
- Messages
- 732
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
If you are aware of my thought while discussing such matters with some pashtun memebers I have always said that those who like to dwell in the past glories of their ancestors while neglecting the changes and complexities of modern world are the biggest losers of the world.......
In modern world offcourse the scientific and technological advancement plays the first and foremost important role in determining the strength and success of a nation. But from personal point of view unity is timeless and universal attribute for any nation in the world..........
I experienced what unity is when I was in germany and I also noticed its role in their current success in science, technology and all other important sectors of modern world.
Agreed, unity is most important factor followed by others.
Secur
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 10,119
- Reaction score
- 56
- Country
- Location
You go that haywire on a historical narrative which @TheFlyingPretzel was trying to discuss with you, drama queen?
Masterio92
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 0
large number of Pukhtoons, especially the Afridis, deserted from British army in France, Mesopotamia and Egypt in the First World War. They were averse to fighting against their co-religionists the Turks and that was why the General Officer Commanding in Chief, Egyptian Expeditionary Force, was compelled in November, 1917 to repatriate three Indian officers and 202 other ranks and all Frontier Pakhtoons of 58th Rifles from Egypt and recommended ban on their recruitment on account of their "bad behaviour".
Masterio92
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 0
Lur Female warriors of Luristan- Persia to Pakhtoon Females urinating on British soldiers.
To the latter, had it been a tribal or clan's custom the adjacent tribes or clans would have reported it to the outer world. The Afridi guerrilla fighers namely Kamal Khan, Multan Khani, Ajab Khan and Shahzada Afridi , Mullah Said Akbar etc were called by British as bandit and mad mullahs while to inhabitants of north west, they were heroes and freedom fighters. Most of them except Ajab Khan Afridi & Mullah Said Akbar, were ex- soldiers or deserters of British Army. They were politically aware and had support of tribes' elders & Mullahs at some stages of their struggle.
Additionally, every single skirmish or conflict regardless of its magnitude that had occurred between Brits & Afridis and every expedition that had initiated are well documented. There had been no occurrence of British soldiers being abducted or made POWs. The only abduction that had taken place was of Major Ellis's daughter Molly Elis. She was later on returned unharmed by Afridi brothers after avenging their humiliation of' house search'.
About the women of Khyber, let's read what Robert Warburton who served as Political Agent for eighteen years in Khyber, says in his book: A woman or girl above 10 years is never permitted to address any male not connected with her by relationship. A stranger has always to be avoided, and if by any chance a woman comes across one in a narrow lane or road, she generally covers up her face and stands with her back towards him until he has passed"
And these remarks of Warburton stand for every Pakhtoon woman in general.
To the latter, had it been a tribal or clan's custom the adjacent tribes or clans would have reported it to the outer world. The Afridi guerrilla fighers namely Kamal Khan, Multan Khani, Ajab Khan and Shahzada Afridi , Mullah Said Akbar etc were called by British as bandit and mad mullahs while to inhabitants of north west, they were heroes and freedom fighters. Most of them except Ajab Khan Afridi & Mullah Said Akbar, were ex- soldiers or deserters of British Army. They were politically aware and had support of tribes' elders & Mullahs at some stages of their struggle.
Additionally, every single skirmish or conflict regardless of its magnitude that had occurred between Brits & Afridis and every expedition that had initiated are well documented. There had been no occurrence of British soldiers being abducted or made POWs. The only abduction that had taken place was of Major Ellis's daughter Molly Elis. She was later on returned unharmed by Afridi brothers after avenging their humiliation of' house search'.
About the women of Khyber, let's read what Robert Warburton who served as Political Agent for eighteen years in Khyber, says in his book: A woman or girl above 10 years is never permitted to address any male not connected with her by relationship. A stranger has always to be avoided, and if by any chance a woman comes across one in a narrow lane or road, she generally covers up her face and stands with her back towards him until he has passed"
And these remarks of Warburton stand for every Pakhtoon woman in general.
Masterio92
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 0
Al-Kurdi
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,149
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
And to clearly if it was just "scribal error", Feylis today wouldn't consider themselves Kurdish...
The Hazaraspids (1148–1424), was a Kurdish dynasty[1] that ruled the Zagros Mountains region of southwestern Persia, essentially in Lorestān and the adjacent parts of Fārs which flourished in the later Saljuq, Ilkhanid, Muzaffarids, and Timurid periods.[2] The founder of dynasty Abu Tahir bin Muhammad was initially a commander of the Salghurid Atabaks of Fars and was appointed as the governor of Kuhgiluya,[3] but eventually gained independence in Luristan and extended his realm as far as Isfahan and assumed the prestigious title of Atabak.[4] His son, Malek Hazarasp fought a successful campaign against Salghurids and assisted Jalal-al-din Khwarezmshah in his struggle against the Mongols. Another Hazaraspid ruler Takla, accompanied Hulagu on his march to Baghdad, but deserted because of the murder of the last caliph. He was eventually caught and executed on Hulagu's order.
Yusuf Shah I received Ilkhan Abaqa's confirmation of his rule and added Khuzestan, Kuhgiluya, Firuzan (near Isfahan) and Golpayegan to his domain. Afrasiab I attempted to extend his control to the coast of Persian Gulf but faced stiff opposition from the Mongols who defeated his army at Kuhrud near Kashan. He was reinstated by Ilkhan Gaykhatu but was executed by Gazan in October 1296.[5]
The capital of Hazaraspids was located at Idaj located in present-day northern Khuzestan. Yusuf Shah II annexed the cities of Shushtar, Hoveizeh and Basra in the first half of fourteenth century.[6] During the reign of Shams-al-din Pashang, the dynasty faced attacks from Muzaffarids and the capital Idaj temporarily fell into their hands, until the occupiers had to retreat due to their own internecine fighting. In 1424, the Timurid ruler Shahrukh Mirza overthrew the last Hazaraspid ruler Ghias-al-din thereby ended the dynasty.
Rulers[edit]
Abu Tahir bin Muhammad (r. 1148–1203)
Malek Hazarasp (r. 1204–1248)
Emad-al-din (r. 1248–1251)
Nosrat-al-din (r. 1252–1257)
Takla (r. 1258– )
Shams-al-din Alp Arghun
Yusuf Shah I (r. 1274–1288)
Afrasiab I (r. 1288–1296)
Nosrat-al-din Ahmad (r. 1296–1330)
Rokn-al-din Yusuf Shah II (r. 1330–1340)
Mozaffar-al-din Afrasiab II (r. 1340–1355)
Shams-al-din Pashang (r. 1355–1378)
Malek Pir Ahmad (r. 1378–1408)
Abu Saeed (r. 1408–1417)
Shah Hussein (r. 1417–1424)
Ghias-al-din (r. 1424)
The Hazaraspids (1148–1424), was a Kurdish dynasty[1] that ruled the Zagros Mountains region of southwestern Persia, essentially in Lorestān and the adjacent parts of Fārs which flourished in the later Saljuq, Ilkhanid, Muzaffarids, and Timurid periods.[2] The founder of dynasty Abu Tahir bin Muhammad was initially a commander of the Salghurid Atabaks of Fars and was appointed as the governor of Kuhgiluya,[3] but eventually gained independence in Luristan and extended his realm as far as Isfahan and assumed the prestigious title of Atabak.[4] His son, Malek Hazarasp fought a successful campaign against Salghurids and assisted Jalal-al-din Khwarezmshah in his struggle against the Mongols. Another Hazaraspid ruler Takla, accompanied Hulagu on his march to Baghdad, but deserted because of the murder of the last caliph. He was eventually caught and executed on Hulagu's order.
Yusuf Shah I received Ilkhan Abaqa's confirmation of his rule and added Khuzestan, Kuhgiluya, Firuzan (near Isfahan) and Golpayegan to his domain. Afrasiab I attempted to extend his control to the coast of Persian Gulf but faced stiff opposition from the Mongols who defeated his army at Kuhrud near Kashan. He was reinstated by Ilkhan Gaykhatu but was executed by Gazan in October 1296.[5]
The capital of Hazaraspids was located at Idaj located in present-day northern Khuzestan. Yusuf Shah II annexed the cities of Shushtar, Hoveizeh and Basra in the first half of fourteenth century.[6] During the reign of Shams-al-din Pashang, the dynasty faced attacks from Muzaffarids and the capital Idaj temporarily fell into their hands, until the occupiers had to retreat due to their own internecine fighting. In 1424, the Timurid ruler Shahrukh Mirza overthrew the last Hazaraspid ruler Ghias-al-din thereby ended the dynasty.
Rulers[edit]
Abu Tahir bin Muhammad (r. 1148–1203)
Malek Hazarasp (r. 1204–1248)
Emad-al-din (r. 1248–1251)
Nosrat-al-din (r. 1252–1257)
Takla (r. 1258– )
Shams-al-din Alp Arghun
Yusuf Shah I (r. 1274–1288)
Afrasiab I (r. 1288–1296)
Nosrat-al-din Ahmad (r. 1296–1330)
Rokn-al-din Yusuf Shah II (r. 1330–1340)
Mozaffar-al-din Afrasiab II (r. 1340–1355)
Shams-al-din Pashang (r. 1355–1378)
Malek Pir Ahmad (r. 1378–1408)
Abu Saeed (r. 1408–1417)
Shah Hussein (r. 1417–1424)
Ghias-al-din (r. 1424)
Last edited:
Al-Kurdi
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,149
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Lur-i-kuchek (Luristan Minor)
Traditionally Lur-i-kuchek corresponded to modern provinces of Luristan and Ilam. It comprised the entire belt of mountainous region stretching from the plains of the Tigris in the west to the Diz River in the east. The entire area came under the control of a local dynasty known as the Atabakan-i-Luristan, which lasted from 1184 to 1597. The rulers of Lur-i-kuchek established their capital in Khorramabad (currently the provincial capital of Luristan), maintained a semi-independent dynasty and paid tribute only when the supreme rulers of Iran were strong enough to collect tribute by force. The last ruler of Lur-i-kuchek was Shah-Vardi Khan, whose sister was married to Shah Abbas, the King of Iran, while Shah-Vardi Khan himself was married to one of the Safavid royal princesses.
The Atabak dynasty was replaced by the Wali dynasty (1596-1929). The founder of the new dynasty was Husain Khan, whose father had married the aunt of the last Atabak, and on the basis of this kinship tie Husain Khan later received the position of ruler of Lur-j-kuchek. The Walis played a significant role in the political affairs of Iran. They guarded southwestern Iran against the Ottomans, who constantly attacked the western and southwestern borders of the country. Ali Mardan Khan was appointed the commander-in-chief of the entire Iranian armed forces dur downfall of the Safavids, when the country was invaded by the Afghans in the early eighteenth century (De Bode 1845).
The reign of the Walis coincided with several dynasties of Iran including: Safavid (1501-1736), Afshar (1736-1750), Zand (1750-1794), Qajar (1796-1925) and the beginning of the Pahlavi(1924-1929). The last two dynasties, namely the Qajar and Pahlavi, are responsible for the political weakness of the Lurs and the decline of the Wali dynasty. Thus, the Lurs maintained their political integrity under the Safavids and Afshars, while they ruled over Iran during the Zand dynasty. However, when the Qajars came to power, they divided Lur-i-kuchek into two parts, Luristan and Posht-kuh. From this time on, the domain of the Walis was limited to Posht-kuh only, while Luristan came under the direct control of the central government. Thus, a governor-general, usually a member of the royal family, was appointed by the king and sent to Luristan. Yet during the Qajar dynasty, Luristan was continually in a state of anarchy. The Qajars were unable to subdue the tribes of Luristan and hence, except for some short periods, there was no peace in Luristan. As a matter of fact, the Qajar dynasty lost total control over Luristan after the assassination of Nasir al-Din Shah in 1896. In short, the division of Lur-i-kuchek by the Qajar dynasty weakened the political strength of the Walis and reduced the Lurs' political influence. Furthermore, the inability of the Qajars to establish law and order in Luristan contributed to the expansion of pastoral nomadism and the destruction of settled communities. Consequently, Luristan suffered politically as well as economically under Qajar rule.
The Qajar dynasty was overthrown by Reza Khan, the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, in 1925. The Pahlavi dynasty (1925-1979) is best characterized as a dictatorial monarchy with absolute rule, that is, the concentration of power in the monarch's hands. The regime built an army whose strength was without precedent in the history of Iran. The army was used against Lurs and other groups who refused to give up their power to the new regime. Through bloody confrontations between the new monarch and the Lurs (as well as other peoples in Iran), the Pahlavi dynasty eventually crushed the powers of the Lurs. Thus, Reza Shah ended the Wali dynasty of Posht-kuh, executed or exiled many of the Lur leaders, forcefully sedentarized the nomadic pastoral tribes and changed the territorial integrity of Lur-i-kuchek.
The Lurs under the Pahlavi Regime
While the Qajar dynasty was responsible for the spread of anarchy among the Lurs, the Pahlavi-dynasty was responsible for their political disorganization, social disruption and the loss of political freedom and semi-independent status. For the first time in their long history, the Lurs were stripped of their traditional rights and political freedom by the Pahlavi dynasty. When Reza Shah took power, he established a centralized government, transferring power from the provincial communities to Tehran. He carried out his plan through the use of military operations against various provincial communities, including the Lurs. A key element to Reza Shah's success was that the Lurs were not unified so he could attack each group separately. Furthermore, Reza Shah used one tribe to fight against another. As the Lurs were defeated, Reza Shah took the following measures to keep them under control: 1) tribal leaders were removed from their positions of authority and were replaced by military officials, 2) many of the leaders, were executed, imprisoned or exiled to other parts of Iran, 3) some tribes were exiled to distant lands, 4) all pastoral nomadic tribes, which formed the majority of the Lur population, were forceably sedentarized without sufficient provisions, 5) all tribesmen were disarmed, 6) the use of the traditional black tent was outlawed, 7) tribesmen were ordered to abandon their traditional costume and were forced to wear Western clothes; however, this rule was not totally carried out, and 8) governmental offices were established in order to carry out the state policies.
The above policies were intended to subjugate the Lurs to the central government. Reza Shah altered the traditional sociopolitical organization of the Lurs without providing opportunities for their participation in local or national government. Undoubtedly the establishment of the central state demanded the integration of various regions and ethnic groups. However, that need not entail political deprivation and the lack of respect for members of the different tribal or ethnic groups. Under the Pahlavi regime, however, the establishment of the modern state came to mean precisely that - the expansion of state domination and disruption of the traditional political organization without the slightest opportunity for peoples to participate in local or national politics.
Reza Shah was deposed by the British and Russians in 1941, and was replaced by his son Mohammed Reza Shah, who ruled from 1941 to 1979. The reign of Mohammed Reza Shah witnessed further centralization of state power and the disintegration of traditional political organization among the Lurs. The enforcement of the land reform program and the nationalization of the forests and pastureland (1962-63 along with various forces of modernization including the expansion of capitalism, urbanism and modern schooling gradually changed many aspects of the Lurs' culture.
Under the Pahlavi regime, the Lurs lost their freedom and their semi-independent status, and the Lurs' territories were divided into several administrative units without any regard for traditional boundaries. For instance, Lur-i-kuchek has been limited to modern Luristan while Posht-kuh, formerly ruled by the Wali dynasty, was incorporated into Ilam province. The most dramatic change caused by the Pahlavi regime was the loss of freedom and the semi-independent status of the Lurs. Prior to the establishment of the Pahlavi Regime, basic decisions were made within the local communities. For instance, the Bakhtiari was ruled by a local dynasty who paid certain tributes to the central government, while internal affairs were taken care of by the members of that dynasty. In Luristan, each tribal group acted as a semi-independent unit. In Posht-kuh, the Walis were supreme, while the tribes of Kuh-Gilu-Boir Ahmed and those of Mamasani also enjoyed the same internal freedom. The Pahlavi regime, however, sent high-ranking officials from Tehran to supervise the Lur territories. Just prior to the recent revolution, all governors-general were directly appointed by the Shah without taking into consideration the existence of the Lurs' communities. Lurs, like other Iranians, were prohibited from organizing political parties, forming associations or expressing themselves through mass media and public gatherings.
Second, Iranian oil is extracted from the mountain slopes of Luristan, Bakhtiari and Kuh-Gilu-Boir Ahmed provinces, but the Lurs were deprived from their share of oil revenue, particularly during the reign of Mohammed Reza Shah. The money derived from oil went to the pockets of the Tehranis, creating regional economic inequalities.
Third, despite the fact that the Pahlavi regime provided elementary and, to some extent, secondary education for the Lurs, it failed to provide them with opportunities for higher education. Until a few years prior to the revolution, not a single institution of higher education was established among the Lurs, nor were they given scholarships or financial support. The Pahlavi regime was thus responsible for depriving the Lurs of access to higher and prestigious positions. High-ranking Lur families were the only exceptions; they could afford to send their children to universities either in Iran or outside the country.
Modern education was used during the Pahlavi rule as a way to undermine local cultural values. School curriculum was prepared in Tehran without taking the cultural diversity among the Iranian peoples into consideration. Not a single course in the entire elementary, high school or university curricula reflected the history, geography or sociocultural values of the Lurs.
In sum, the Lurs lost their sociopolitical integrity under the Pahlavi dynasty. They were integrated into the "modern" state without any opportunity for effective participation in the decision-making process that affected their lives.
The Lurs under the Islamic Regime
It is too early to evaluate the sociopolitical conditions of the Lurs under the present regime. So far, political parties, associations and local newspapers have not yet emerged. Administrative boundaries of the Lurs' territories remain unchanged from those of the Pahlavi regime. While it is difficult to speculate about the future of the Lurs under the current regime, considering the fact that the present regime is concerned more with an Islamic community rather than with a country of diverse ethnic groups, it seems unlikely that there will be considerable change in the near future.
The Lurs of Iran | Cultural Survival
Traditionally Lur-i-kuchek corresponded to modern provinces of Luristan and Ilam. It comprised the entire belt of mountainous region stretching from the plains of the Tigris in the west to the Diz River in the east. The entire area came under the control of a local dynasty known as the Atabakan-i-Luristan, which lasted from 1184 to 1597. The rulers of Lur-i-kuchek established their capital in Khorramabad (currently the provincial capital of Luristan), maintained a semi-independent dynasty and paid tribute only when the supreme rulers of Iran were strong enough to collect tribute by force. The last ruler of Lur-i-kuchek was Shah-Vardi Khan, whose sister was married to Shah Abbas, the King of Iran, while Shah-Vardi Khan himself was married to one of the Safavid royal princesses.
The Atabak dynasty was replaced by the Wali dynasty (1596-1929). The founder of the new dynasty was Husain Khan, whose father had married the aunt of the last Atabak, and on the basis of this kinship tie Husain Khan later received the position of ruler of Lur-j-kuchek. The Walis played a significant role in the political affairs of Iran. They guarded southwestern Iran against the Ottomans, who constantly attacked the western and southwestern borders of the country. Ali Mardan Khan was appointed the commander-in-chief of the entire Iranian armed forces dur downfall of the Safavids, when the country was invaded by the Afghans in the early eighteenth century (De Bode 1845).
The reign of the Walis coincided with several dynasties of Iran including: Safavid (1501-1736), Afshar (1736-1750), Zand (1750-1794), Qajar (1796-1925) and the beginning of the Pahlavi(1924-1929). The last two dynasties, namely the Qajar and Pahlavi, are responsible for the political weakness of the Lurs and the decline of the Wali dynasty. Thus, the Lurs maintained their political integrity under the Safavids and Afshars, while they ruled over Iran during the Zand dynasty. However, when the Qajars came to power, they divided Lur-i-kuchek into two parts, Luristan and Posht-kuh. From this time on, the domain of the Walis was limited to Posht-kuh only, while Luristan came under the direct control of the central government. Thus, a governor-general, usually a member of the royal family, was appointed by the king and sent to Luristan. Yet during the Qajar dynasty, Luristan was continually in a state of anarchy. The Qajars were unable to subdue the tribes of Luristan and hence, except for some short periods, there was no peace in Luristan. As a matter of fact, the Qajar dynasty lost total control over Luristan after the assassination of Nasir al-Din Shah in 1896. In short, the division of Lur-i-kuchek by the Qajar dynasty weakened the political strength of the Walis and reduced the Lurs' political influence. Furthermore, the inability of the Qajars to establish law and order in Luristan contributed to the expansion of pastoral nomadism and the destruction of settled communities. Consequently, Luristan suffered politically as well as economically under Qajar rule.
The Qajar dynasty was overthrown by Reza Khan, the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, in 1925. The Pahlavi dynasty (1925-1979) is best characterized as a dictatorial monarchy with absolute rule, that is, the concentration of power in the monarch's hands. The regime built an army whose strength was without precedent in the history of Iran. The army was used against Lurs and other groups who refused to give up their power to the new regime. Through bloody confrontations between the new monarch and the Lurs (as well as other peoples in Iran), the Pahlavi dynasty eventually crushed the powers of the Lurs. Thus, Reza Shah ended the Wali dynasty of Posht-kuh, executed or exiled many of the Lur leaders, forcefully sedentarized the nomadic pastoral tribes and changed the territorial integrity of Lur-i-kuchek.
The Lurs under the Pahlavi Regime
While the Qajar dynasty was responsible for the spread of anarchy among the Lurs, the Pahlavi-dynasty was responsible for their political disorganization, social disruption and the loss of political freedom and semi-independent status. For the first time in their long history, the Lurs were stripped of their traditional rights and political freedom by the Pahlavi dynasty. When Reza Shah took power, he established a centralized government, transferring power from the provincial communities to Tehran. He carried out his plan through the use of military operations against various provincial communities, including the Lurs. A key element to Reza Shah's success was that the Lurs were not unified so he could attack each group separately. Furthermore, Reza Shah used one tribe to fight against another. As the Lurs were defeated, Reza Shah took the following measures to keep them under control: 1) tribal leaders were removed from their positions of authority and were replaced by military officials, 2) many of the leaders, were executed, imprisoned or exiled to other parts of Iran, 3) some tribes were exiled to distant lands, 4) all pastoral nomadic tribes, which formed the majority of the Lur population, were forceably sedentarized without sufficient provisions, 5) all tribesmen were disarmed, 6) the use of the traditional black tent was outlawed, 7) tribesmen were ordered to abandon their traditional costume and were forced to wear Western clothes; however, this rule was not totally carried out, and 8) governmental offices were established in order to carry out the state policies.
The above policies were intended to subjugate the Lurs to the central government. Reza Shah altered the traditional sociopolitical organization of the Lurs without providing opportunities for their participation in local or national government. Undoubtedly the establishment of the central state demanded the integration of various regions and ethnic groups. However, that need not entail political deprivation and the lack of respect for members of the different tribal or ethnic groups. Under the Pahlavi regime, however, the establishment of the modern state came to mean precisely that - the expansion of state domination and disruption of the traditional political organization without the slightest opportunity for peoples to participate in local or national politics.
Reza Shah was deposed by the British and Russians in 1941, and was replaced by his son Mohammed Reza Shah, who ruled from 1941 to 1979. The reign of Mohammed Reza Shah witnessed further centralization of state power and the disintegration of traditional political organization among the Lurs. The enforcement of the land reform program and the nationalization of the forests and pastureland (1962-63 along with various forces of modernization including the expansion of capitalism, urbanism and modern schooling gradually changed many aspects of the Lurs' culture.
Under the Pahlavi regime, the Lurs lost their freedom and their semi-independent status, and the Lurs' territories were divided into several administrative units without any regard for traditional boundaries. For instance, Lur-i-kuchek has been limited to modern Luristan while Posht-kuh, formerly ruled by the Wali dynasty, was incorporated into Ilam province. The most dramatic change caused by the Pahlavi regime was the loss of freedom and the semi-independent status of the Lurs. Prior to the establishment of the Pahlavi Regime, basic decisions were made within the local communities. For instance, the Bakhtiari was ruled by a local dynasty who paid certain tributes to the central government, while internal affairs were taken care of by the members of that dynasty. In Luristan, each tribal group acted as a semi-independent unit. In Posht-kuh, the Walis were supreme, while the tribes of Kuh-Gilu-Boir Ahmed and those of Mamasani also enjoyed the same internal freedom. The Pahlavi regime, however, sent high-ranking officials from Tehran to supervise the Lur territories. Just prior to the recent revolution, all governors-general were directly appointed by the Shah without taking into consideration the existence of the Lurs' communities. Lurs, like other Iranians, were prohibited from organizing political parties, forming associations or expressing themselves through mass media and public gatherings.
Second, Iranian oil is extracted from the mountain slopes of Luristan, Bakhtiari and Kuh-Gilu-Boir Ahmed provinces, but the Lurs were deprived from their share of oil revenue, particularly during the reign of Mohammed Reza Shah. The money derived from oil went to the pockets of the Tehranis, creating regional economic inequalities.
Third, despite the fact that the Pahlavi regime provided elementary and, to some extent, secondary education for the Lurs, it failed to provide them with opportunities for higher education. Until a few years prior to the revolution, not a single institution of higher education was established among the Lurs, nor were they given scholarships or financial support. The Pahlavi regime was thus responsible for depriving the Lurs of access to higher and prestigious positions. High-ranking Lur families were the only exceptions; they could afford to send their children to universities either in Iran or outside the country.
Modern education was used during the Pahlavi rule as a way to undermine local cultural values. School curriculum was prepared in Tehran without taking the cultural diversity among the Iranian peoples into consideration. Not a single course in the entire elementary, high school or university curricula reflected the history, geography or sociocultural values of the Lurs.
In sum, the Lurs lost their sociopolitical integrity under the Pahlavi dynasty. They were integrated into the "modern" state without any opportunity for effective participation in the decision-making process that affected their lives.
The Lurs under the Islamic Regime
It is too early to evaluate the sociopolitical conditions of the Lurs under the present regime. So far, political parties, associations and local newspapers have not yet emerged. Administrative boundaries of the Lurs' territories remain unchanged from those of the Pahlavi regime. While it is difficult to speculate about the future of the Lurs under the current regime, considering the fact that the present regime is concerned more with an Islamic community rather than with a country of diverse ethnic groups, it seems unlikely that there will be considerable change in the near future.
The Lurs of Iran | Cultural Survival
Gentelman
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2012
- Messages
- 2,307
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
You disappointed me.............
In Ghazwa e Ohad many Sahibiyahs(R.A) fought.........
also in wars Muslim women were there as medics and helpers........
Similar threads
