Manoutchehr Eskandari-Qajar - in defence of the indefensible

Iranian prince Dr. Eskandari teaches political science but separates his royal lineage from the classroom
Abstract:An Iranian prince calmly walks to his political science class, the same class he's taught for the past 16 years. He can almost taste the freedom that is America. Here, he's far removed from his politically ravaged homeland of Iran. He embraces the sun by watching the waves hit the shoreline from West Campus....
Post Comment
Go to Article
Comments in Other Articles
RSS Feed
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10

Abol Hassan Danesh
posted 3/27/08 @ 8:04 AM PST
Without exception all iranians are the decendant of Cyrus the Great and that makes them all to have royal blood running in their veins-- Trace...tracing... traced...
Post a reply to this comment

Bahramerad
posted 3/27/08 @ 10:26 PM PST
Well put - I quite agree .
Originally posted by
Abol Hassan DaneshWithout exception all iranians are the decendant of Cyrus the Great and that makes them all to have royal blood running in their veins-- Trace...tracing... traced...
Post a reply to this comment
Mani Atabaki
posted 3/27/08 @ 8:37 AM PST
Mr. Eskandari is one of literally tens of thousands of Qajar Princes and Princesses in and outside of Iran. The Qajars were famed for having tens of wives at a time (often as young as 9 yrs old) and having 20, 50, or 100 children from thier many wives. You can do the math and figure how many decendents they would have 10 to 20 generations later. Another noteworthy point is that, in todays atmosphere of derision in Iran, the only thing that all Iranians are united in is thier dislike of the Qajar dynasty (this included Iranian "Royalists"). The Qajars consisted of a handfull of sloth-like pleasure seeking kings who, to the person, smoked opiem regularly. During the 135 dark years that they ruled Iran, 40% of Iranian land (roughly 6 modern day countries) were taken away or signed away from Iran by the Qajar kings, at times, in direct exchange for money in thier personal coffers.
Post a reply to this comment
Oolong
posted 3/27/08 @ 10:21 AM PST
It takes special talent to be THE WORST dynasty EVER in a 2500 monarchy. The Qajars (kajars) were self-serving, backward, religious zealots who sold or gave half the county away out of shear incompetence or for personal gain. WORST DYNASTY EVER...
Post a reply to this comment

BAHRAMERAD
posted 3/27/08 @ 10:09 PM PST
"Iran was led by the Kadjar Dynasty for over 130 years before being overthrown by a military coup led by Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1925." THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE AND UTTER -OUTRIGHT LIE - PLEASE REMOVE THIS AND DESSIST IN SAYING IT AGAIN-
Post a reply to this comment
Mehran Khoram
posted 3/28/08 @ 11:34 AM PST
I'm affraid this is not a great find. Ghajar "Princes" and "Princese" are a dime a dozen. The main contribution of this dynesty was marrying multiple under-aged girls and fathering ennumerable children generation after generation. Chances are, if you see any two Iranians at random, one of them has Ghajar blood in them. The difference is that some do not know (or would not care to know) if they have Ghajar blood, while some do. The Ghajar's were the most incompetent of all rulers over the past 2500 years of Iranian History. Most Iranians would agree that even today's fanatical backward mollah regime has done less damage to Iran than the Ghajars did.
Post a reply to this comment
Manoutchehr Eskandari-Qajar
posted 3/29/08 @ 2:40 PM PST
Long ago I made a promise to myself not to engage in polemics, but given that this article about me was published in our school journal, my silence regarding the comments made on this page might be interpreted as acquiescence. I would hope that well-meaning individuals, my students and the readers at large, would inform themselves on the truth of the matter regarding the period of rule the Qajar era represents in Persian history. Thankfully there are now hundreds of articles and books available to give a clearer picture of that period, the latest of which being a book on War and Peace in the Qajar Era, published by Routledge in 2007, to which I contributed a chapter on the decision-making processes of the early Qajars. Innuendo and insult have their own logic and are not amenable to reason, since those who engage in them are afraid that their cherished beliefs may turn out to be wrong. I have experienced this over and over again. There is therefore nothing I could ever say that would sway those who engage in these things. In fact, having tried, I have only experienced more insult and innuendo from the same quarters and I do not expect any different this time around. My reply really concerns those who would seek to inform themselves more on the matter, and if following my encouragement even one person would study the matter more, I would consider that a victory in and of itself.
Post a reply to this comment

Bahramerad
posted 3/29/08 @ 3:22 PM PST
Mr.Eskandari I have accused you of lying and telling outright falsehood when you say that in 1924, Reza Shah the Great came to power after a cod de tat- From 1906 for 18 long years -- as a de-facto head of the army and having all the power necessary for taking power by force --and having every opportunity to do so - he did not do that. He was selected and then invested to the throne of the new Pahlavi dynasty by the elected members of the parliament. Faire and square. Now - no amount of rewriting of history will change that. I am amazed that in the American Universities Establishment people like you are tolerated and allowed to peddle this kind of out right lies.
Post a reply to this comment
Manoutchehr Eskandari-Qajar
posted 3/29/08 @ 5:14 PM PST
I am afraid that anger is no substitute for knowledge. Here is one book that is most sympathetic to Reza Shah and most critical of the Qajars: Cyrus Ghani's Iran and the Rise of Reza Shah. Here is another, Stephanie Cronin's edited volume The Making of Modern Iran. Both mention the coup d'etat of 1921 by Reza Khan and the subsequent vote in the Majles in 1925 abolishing the Qajar Dynasty, a Majles that had been manipulated by Reza Khan to be compliant to his wishes. (Their words not mine!) To add to this piece of history, it is a well known fact that my relative Soleyman Mirza Eskandari who was the deputy of the Social Democrats in the Majles at the time, voted in favor of the abolition of the Qajars, his own cousins. I have written extensively on this matter, most recently in the September 2007 issue of Iranian Studies of which I was also guest editor. The trust put in Reza Khan by Soleyman Mirza was betrayed by Reza Khan. When Soleyman Mirza asked him after the take-over what happened to their agreement that Reza Khan become President of a Republic, Pahlavi came to his house with his guard and called to Soleyman Mirza: "Shazdeh agar yek baar-e degar in harf raa bezaani kaari mikonam ke aajorhaaye in khaaneh ba haalat geriyeh konand." (Shazdeh, if you mention this matter one more time, I will treat with you in such a manner that even the bricks of your house would weep for you." This too is a matter of record in Iradj Eskandari's memoir "Khaateraat-e Siyaassi" (Political Memoirs). I am afraid you are fighting your own demons in getting angry at me. The blame rests with years of indoctrination under the Pahlavis. The facts are clear in this regard. The Pahlavi take-over will always be under a cloud as a result. Iran was a Constitutional Monarchy under the last three Qajar Shahs. Mohammad Ali Shah fought the Constitutionalists and lost. Soltan Ahmad Shah was the last Constitutional Monarch of Iran. Good or bad, that is the fact. Reza Khan mounted a military coup against the Constitutional Monarchy of Iran and then became a dictator until his removal by the British in 1941. His supporters such as yourself see him as a great man. That is fine. But one should remember the facts. Those same people will go on endlessly about the faults of Ahmad Shah also, and will curse and shout and carry on. That is fine too. I welcome academic debates on these matters. Let there be more academic debate on these matters. The more academic debate the better because more and more facts emerge to clarify the picture. Anger, innuendo, name-calling and aspersions, however, will do nothing to change the facts or clarify the picture.
Post a reply to this comment
Linda Stephenson
posted 3/29/08 @ 7:55 PM PST
In my woeful ignorance of Persian/Iranian history, I can't contribute anything helpful to this debate. But I am delighted that Dr. Eskandari has jumped in to respond and that he has provided interested readers with reputable source texts. His detractors would be more convincing if their arguments were reasoned, relevant, and courteous. To my trained ear, they have the ring of ignorance and fanaticism. I prefer Eskandari's voice of reason.
Post a reply to this comment