Azerbaijani Turkish Becomes the Official Language of Azerbaijan

In previous sections, we examined the history of Kurdish nationalism, the establishment of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, and the 'Kurdistan Republic' in Mahabad, along with the performance of this organization. From this section, we will analyze the activities of the Azerbaijani organization and the ultimate fate of these two entities. With the formation of the 'National Government of Azerbaijan' on December 21, 1945, a group of Azerbaijani intellectuals and political activists, who had modern and generally leftist ideas for governing the country, took control in Tabriz. This group, which mainly supported social democracy, had been critics of the ruling power for years and now had the opportunity to implement their ideas. However, the allies of this organization in Baku and Moscow believed they had no experience in governance, and for this reason, Mir Jafar Bagirov wrote a letter to Stalin, asking him to allow the Soviet Union to send a large group of its employees to Iran to assist the Pishavari government. According to Jamil Hasanli, a researcher of Azerbaijani history and a writer for the Cold War Studies project at Harvard University, with Moscow's permission, about 700 people from Soviet Azerbaijan were sent to Iran to help the autonomous government as advisors. In the view of Abbas Milani, a historian and Stanford University professor, the presence of these individuals among the members of the Democratic Party and their behavior towards Iranians negatively impacted the party's image and made it vulnerable. He states, 'Based on documents that later emerged and memories written by those around the party, a large number of Soviet Azerbaijanis were brought into Iranian Azerbaijan, and they were seen as kind of commissars or actually lords of this society. Many believe that their misbehavior, bullying, and sometimes financial corruption contributed to the party's vulnerability. It seems that many important decisions of the party were dictated by the Soviets and executed by these migrants.' However, aside from the behavior of the Soviet advisors and Azerbaijani migrants, how was the performance of the National Government of Azerbaijan during its time in power? Many researchers divide the record of the Democratic Party during this period into positive and negative aspects. The Democratic Party's plan for Azerbaijan, at least on paper, included significant political, economic, and cultural reforms. Jamil Hasanli, an Azerbaijani researcher in Baku, mentions the establishment of a parliament for Azerbaijan, granting voting rights to women, land reforms, ending the landholding practices of large landowners, drafting labor laws, and even supporting private sector investors as part of the reforms the Democratic Party sought to implement. However, at the forefront of all the party's actions, what was of central importance to many was the issue of the Turkish language. Jamil Hasanli states, 'This government declared Turkish as the official and state language in a short period. They also began teaching Turkish in schools. The establishment of schools and orphanages for orphaned children was another achievement of this government. In these orphanages, orphaned children were cared for and educated, which itself contributed to the popularity of the party's government. People saw that there was a government in power that even cared for their orphans. The establishment of a radio station, a university, an art school, and land reforms were other achievements of the party's government.' In fact, with this government's decision, Turkish education became mandatory not only for Turks but for everyone throughout Azerbaijan. In a decree on January 6, this government, signed by Pishavari and published three days later in the 'Azerbaijan' newspaper, stipulated that military orders and legal bills be written in Turkish, all signs in government offices, institutions, and shops be in Turkish, and trials in courts be conducted in this language. It was also decided that government employees who were not Turkish should attend Turkish language classes and conduct their administrative work in Turkish alongside their native language. Non-Turks were allowed to learn their native language in school but were required to learn Turkish. In the view of Ervand Abrahamian, author of 'Iran Between Two Revolutions' and a professor at Baruch College, alongside all the party's actions, the decree of January 6 and the officialization of the Turkish language hold special significance. He states, 'In my opinion, the party's achievements in land reform, university establishment, and women's voting rights are more symbolic. They were not deep-rooted and since they were not implemented for a long time, they did not have a fundamental impact and did not lead to social changes. Some of these reforms were never truly implemented and remained at the proposal level, and since they were not executed, the social structure did not change. However, what left an impact and was recorded in people's memories was the language issue. Now, what everyone remembers from that period is the use of the Turkish language in newspapers and schools.' At the same time, this decree, as much as it held special importance for some people in Azerbaijan, also provoked more sensitivity in Tehran than many other actions. Abbas Javadi, a researcher of Azerbaijani history, states that the officialization of the Turkish language is one of the turning points that caused even a group of liberal reformists and progressive leftists in Tehran to express concern about what was happening in Azerbaijan. He states, 'Even liberal publications were startled. There is an article in the Iran Emrooz newspaper that says creating jobs in this war and famine by the Democratic Party is very good. But we did not understand the story of the Azerbaijani nation and the Azerbaijani language. Thus, the language issue becomes a major problem.' Among the reforms registered under the name of the 'National Government of Azerbaijan,' one of the most talked-about was land reform. However, Abbas Javadi believes that this part of the party's programs was one of those that was executed in a very limited manner. He states, 'We had land reform during the Pahlavi era [in the 1960s]. Was the land reform in Azerbaijan similar to that of the White Revolution? No! That did not happen. Land was divided, but only the lands of those who had fled to Tehran were divided. They said that if they do not come and take their lands, we will take and divide these lands. Otherwise, they did not deal with the owners.' Some researchers believe that the main reason for the lack of a genuine land reform in Azerbaijan at this time was due to Pishavari's populist policies. He criticized the Tudeh Party, believing that this party only prioritized the interests of workers, while the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan was described as a 'broad and popular front.' This broad front, despite its leftist slogans, not only did not upset large landowners but even undertook programs to win over the clergy and religious people. Touraj Atabaki, author of 'Azerbaijan, Ethnicity, and Power Struggle in Iran,' describes the Democratic Party's policies towards religious people as follows: 'Many religious rituals that had been banned during Reza Shah's era, including flagellation, chest beating, chain beating, and mourning ceremonies, were again permitted by the party, and the ban was lifted. They also annulled the decree issued in 1935 by Reza Shah regarding the unveiling of women, allowing women to wear the chador. In a way, the party tried to win the favor of the clergy.' The return of flagellation groups to the streets was one of the many policies that could lead some reformist intellectuals to criticize the party. Meanwhile, there were those who were not pleased with what they called the party's dependence on the Soviet Union; from nationalists and merchants to moderate liberal politicians and right-wingers close to the central government, all could potentially form a powerful opposition against the Democratic Party.