Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I should be revising for the examinations but I cannot bring myself to do it. Dear Diary,

This book is so comprehensive it felt like a world in itself. I took about a month or more to finish this book and even though I skimmed parts of it, I never thought of giving up -- that's when you know there is a perfect balance between readability and scholarship.

Although I know I've probably already forgotten more than 50% of what I've read, I really appreciated this book as my first foray into Iranian history, especially since the presentation of the material and the authorial opinions were pretty unbiased. Amanat certainly succeeded in delivering an authentic portrayal of Iranian history, one that is adequately detached but also simultaneously immersed in the intricacies of the Iranian identity -- one that dates back to the Sasanian Empire to the Age of Islam, from the ambiguous Qajar period to the modern Pahlavi era, and finally to the present-day under the Islamic Republic.

Like most people around me, and dare I venture, most people who consume Western news, I could not understand the vile anti-American rhetoric that seems to come out of the Islamic Republic every other day. I also could not really fathom how millions of people could possibly choose to subject themselves to despotic theocratic rule in the latter half of the 20th century.

This book certainly illuminated otherwise forgotten incidents in history which are deeply engrained in the Iranian consciousness -- the Western-sponsored coups in 1911 and 1953, the Western-sponsored rise to power of Reza Khan in 1927(?), his subsequent exile during WWII. No wonder the Iranians seem to harbour so much animosity towards the Americans especially. On a side-note, this book also informed my opinion on the egregiously and abominably exploitative nature of Western colonialism. Despicable gosh, especially the coup in 1953.

Also reading about the Islamic Revolution and the cult of personality around the detestable Khomeini has reinforced my belief that religion, when organised and institutionalised, is really just an arcane means to control the population. Sure, religion can strengthen national identity and perhaps bolster social cohesiveness but religion is just 1) never fully benevolent and 2) never fully depoliticised! Almost all religions establish a moral code of sorts and hierarchise society based on believes vs non-believers -- the positive social cohesiveness that comes from religion rests on the collective rejection of another segment of society, leading to entrenched discrimination and possible persecution. This is compounded when religion is invariably brought into politics by opportunists or pure radical clerics -- state-sponsored persecution happens, and worse still, brainwashing on a national level proceeds; those in power will just use religion to remain in power (case in point: the coterie of male clerics in Iran!) What's the point of having a prime minister and a popularly-elected president if the Supreme Leader still has supreme power? Make it make sense. Anyways I don't think the Islamic Republic will last... the autocratic nature of the theocracy and their regressive reading/application of Islamic law are just not compatible with the desires of a modern citizenry. yeah

But anyways you can learn to admire a nation and its culture/heritage/history without being a fan of its government.