In July 1732, Nader Shah Afsharid, established a religious endowment in the Afghan city of Herat shortly after conquering it. In the preface to the deed, it was written that Nader was a ‘loyal servant of Ali’s household and…the defender of Shi’i lands (belad) and of the Shi’a, Nader-Qoli Khan, viceroy of Khorasan and ruler of the realm of Iran.’ What is striking about the passage is who it doesn’t mention, the Safavid ruler Tahmasp is missing from the excerpt and more brazenly, the text asserts that the lands of Iran belong to Nader himself. Nader Shah had no rightful claim to the throne when viewed through the lens of classical kingship, he had no royal bloodline and was born a commoner, who climbed the ranks of the Safavid military and found himself in an increasingly powerful position. The fateful Afghan invasion of Isfahan in 1722, not only proved pivotal in bringing Nader Shah to power, but also triggered a general existential crisis among Safavid elites who began to think about what Iran is and what Iranianness meant. This new book by Mohammad Amir Hakimi Parsa Imperial Iran in the Eighteenth Century: Identity and State Formation under Nader tells the story of how a new idea of Iran came to be.
The Afghan Hutakids, who had sacked the Safavid capital in Iran, sought to subdue much of the empire and emphasised the shared Iranianness of both Sunni Afghans and Shia Iranians. The Hutakids also sought to govern in much the same way as the Safavids before them and create a continuity in rulership. Crucially, they seceded certain Safavid territories to the Ottomans, which would anger the elites whom the Hutakids wanted to control. The reaction of the elites created a number of intellectual camps who would go on to define what Iran ought to be. One discourse that emerged called for the restoration of a Shia state in Iran with some even calling for the removal of the Safavids altogether. One work produced in 1726, the Mokafatnameh, mourned the loss of Iran’s honour and blamed the Safavids for its demise. ‘The Mokafatnameh strove to ideologically dismantle it [the Safavid state] and those identities loyal to it.’ A core concept of the work was the restoration of Shiism and the guidance of the prophetic household as the key component of Iranianness. The author prayed for the Prophetic Imams to place a legitimate ruler to govern Iran. Mirza Zaki Mashhadi, a poet, went much further than this and wrote that Imam Ali should be the legitimate sovereign himself. The Safavid supporters had to respond by producing their own tracks, where they emphasised the Shia identity of Iran and their right to rule.
BOOK REVIEW: A Daring Enterprise: A US-Egyptian Partnership and the Case for Soft Power
Nader Shah appeared during this timeframe initially as a servant of the Safavids and whose conquests temporarily restored Safavid rule. But Nader also gained power himself, and his supporters began to build the base for his legitimacy. As a commoner, his rise to prominence bore a resemblance to Timur’s rise as a vassal to the Mongol Chaghatayid Chinggisid line. He was keen to utilise Mongol traditions and connections to Timur for his own ends. Much like Nader Shah, Timur gained legitimacy through his conquests, which was seen as divine favour. The reporting of dreams that connected Nader Shah to Timur was also used to help cement his legitimisation. In one dream, Nader discovered Timur’s hidden treasure in Kalat Fortress, after a light emanating from the foot of a hill appeared leading Nader to confronting a dragon stationed near a well. Upon killing the dragon, Nader found the well was full of treasure and an inscription left by Timur himself, which read that whoever entered this location would be his prodigy and a world conquer. Timur as well as the Shia Imams fused together as part of Nader Shah’s legitimising claims.
When Nader Shah finally ended Safavid control and established himself the ruler of Iran, his coronation ceremony wielded new concepts of Iranianness. The ceremony made clear, ‘Nader’s kingship would save Iran by restoring its faith through the non-sectarian Ja’fari creed, reconciling Shi’i and Sunni, and thus achieving a lasting peace with fellow Muslims.’ This move established himself as a legitimate Shia ruler to satisfy the old religious elites, but also enabled him to appear a legitimate ruler in the eyes of the Sunnis in his domain and also positioned them as part of the new Iran too. The most interesting aspect of the ceremony was the signing of the mochalga, a document that binds the signatories to loyalty to Nader Shah. The document uses the first-person plurals and uses words like ‘we’ and the people of Iran. The document was signed during a public ceremony, where both nobles and commoners gathered to elect Nader as the new shah. What was significant is that the attendees got to debate what was in the document and for the first time in Iranian history, sovereignty was given a popular mandate. ‘The result was the election of a low-born man to imperial sovereignty.’
Imperial Iran in the Eighteenth Century offers a fascinating view on the pivotal moment in Iranian history, where the old notion of right to rule breaks down and a new idea of Iranianness emerges. As today’s Iran reflects on the relationship between the government and its people, war and legitimacy, looking back at a previous existential crisis that altered the way the country identifies itself offers us a sense of where Iran has been in the past. Those interested to understand Iran’s past and how it emerged as a nation will find this book insightful and worth a read.
BOOK REVIEW: Private Sins, Public Crimes: Policing, Punishment, and Authority in Iran
