Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-03T15:18:02.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Center-Periphery Relations in Nineteenth-Century Iran

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Shaul Bakhash
Shaul Bakhash*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When Aqa Mohammad Shah Qajar overthrew the Zand dynasty and established himself on the Persian throne in 1794, large parts of the country were in the hands of tribal chieftains and local leaders. Aqa Mohammad himself had to fight several campaigns to assert his control over the provinces. Under his successors, further campaigns were waged to extend or, more frequently, to maintain or reassert central authority. In the second half of Naser al-Din Shah's reign (1848-1896), the authority of the central government appeared to observers to be more firm than in the early part of the century. But the hold of the center over the provinces, and particularly over the outlying areas, remained precarious. Any weakening of the center, deterioration of the financial situation, or other setback could potentially upset whatever delicate balance had been achieved between the center and the provinces and lead to a reassertion of provincial autonomy.

Type
Articles
Information
Iranian Studies , Volume 14 , Issue 1-2 , Spring Winter 1981 , pp. 29 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Association For Iranian Studies, Inc 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Lambton, A. K. S., “Persia: The Breakdown of Society,” in Holt, P. M. et al. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Islam (Cambridge, 1970), I, p. 434.Google Scholar

2. Fraser, J. B., A Winter's Journey from Constantinople to Tehran (London, 1834), I, p. 400.Google Scholar

3. When Naser al-Din Shah proposed to appoint his eldest son, Zil al-Sultan, governor of Fars, the shah's advisory council expressed its misgivings. The members felt, the prime minister wrote to the shah, that “on the one hand, due to his nearness to the throne, he is self-confident; on the other hand, he has excessive love of wealth. He will leave no one property or goods. The subjects will be rendered destitute and the government taxes will not reach the treasury.” Mo'tamed, Mahmud Farhad, Sepahsalar-e A'zam (Tehran, 1326/1946-47), pp. 131-32.Google Scholar

4. Lambton, A. K. S., Landlord and Peasant in Persia (London, 1953), p. 143.Google Scholar

5. Malcolm, John, The History of Persia (London, 1815), II, pp. 324-25, 332-33.Google Scholar

6. Curzon, George, Persia and the Persian Question (London, 1892), I, p. 436.Google Scholar

7. Ansari, Mostapha, “The History of Khuzestan: 1878-1925: A Study in Provincial Autonomy and Change” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago), pp. 41-46, 52-54.Google Scholar

8. Safa'i, Ebrahim, Asnad-e Now Yafteh (Tehran, 1346/1967-68), p. 12.Google Scholar

9. Ibid., p. 11.

10. Ibid., pp. 13-14.

11. Enc. in Greene to Kimberley, No. 116 (225), Tehran, Nov. 5, 1894, FO 539/68; Wood to Durand, No. 35, Tabriz, Aug. 6, 1896, FO 248/633.

12. Ansari, pp. 148-52, 156-58.

13. Garthwaite, Gene, “The Bakhtiari Khans, the Government of Iran and the British, 1846-1915,” International Journal of Middle East studies, III (1970), pp. 24-25.Google Scholar

14. Ibid., pp. 27-28, 34-35.

15. Curzon, I, p. 556.

16. Lambton, 1970, p. 453.

17. Mohammad Hasan E'temad os-Saltaneh, Mer'at al-Boldan-e Naseri (Tehran, 1295/1878-79), III, pp. 10-11.Google Scholar

18. Ibid., p. 45.

19. Ibid., pp. 105-06.

20. Ibid., appendix, p. 6.

21. Curzon, I, p. 590.

22. For these and subsequent judicial reforms, see Bakhash, Shaul, Iran: Monarchy, Bureaucracy and Reform under the Qajars: 1858-1896 (London, 1978), pp. 83-87.Google Scholar

23. Safa'i, p. 14.

24. Adamiyyat, Fereydun and Nateq, Homa, Afkar-e Ejtema'i va Siyasi va Eqtesadi dar Asar-e Montasher nashodeh-ye Dowran-e Qajar (Tehran, 1356/1977-78), pp. 375-417.Google Scholar Describes in detail the type of petitions submitted to this court.)

25. E'temad os-Saltaneh, III, pp. 57-60.

26. Ibid., pp. 146-48.

27. Ibid., pp. 163-66.

28. Ibid., pp. 193-94.

29. Ibid., p. 222 and II, appendix.

30. Ibid., III, pp. 235-39.

31. Text of decree of the tanzimat-e hasaneh in Huquq-e Mardom, IV, No. 15 (1348/1969), 72-77. See also Bakhash, pp. 166-70 and Adamiyyat, Andisheh-ye Taraqqi va Hukumat-e Qanun: ‘Asr-e Sepahsalar (Tehran, 1351/1972-73), pp. 217-226.Google Scholar The sources do not agree as to the scope of implementation of the tanzimat-e hasaneh. British sources (see Enc. 1, Churchill to Derby, Resht, No. 11, July 1, 1875; Enc. 2, Abbott to Derby, No. 6, Resht, March 31, 1875; and Enc. 1, Churchill to Derby, Resht, No. 5, May 8, 1875 all in FO 60/374) suggest that Rasht was the first place where the reforms were implemented in a “ballon d'essai,” after which they, were suspended. But Adamiyyat op. cit., p. 224) has found references to the implementation of the tanzimat-e hasaneh in 1291/1874 in Qom, Qazvin, Saveh, and Nahavand and further references to orders from the shah in 1292/1875-76 to extend the tanzimat to Isfahan, Bastam, Hamadan, Gilan, Mazandaran, Astarabad, Kashan, and Yazd.

32. Lambton, 1970, pp. 449, 451.