Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T23:00:59.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Downfall of Mirza Taqi Khan Amir Kabir and the Problem of Ministerial Authority in Qajar Iran

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Abbas Amanat
Abbas Amanat
Affiliation:
Department of History, Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 11 November 1851, Nasir al-Din Shah (r. 1848—96), the 20-year-old Qajar ruler of Iran, dismissed from the post of premier his guardian-tutor (atābak) and brother-in-law Mirza Taqi Khan Farahani, Amir(-i) Nizam, better known to posterity as Amir Kabir. He allowed him to continue in the post of commander-in-chief of the army (amārat-i niẓām), however. “Since the office of the grand vizierate in volves too much labor,” the shah wrote to Amir Kabir, “and the burden of such a task was arduous for you. we have relieved you of this duty. You must continue as commander-in-chief with full confidence.”1 Only two months later, on 10 January 1852, Amir Kabir was secretly put to death in the Fin royal garden near Kashan, where he had spent the last days of his exile.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , November 1991 , pp. 577 - 599
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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 Mīrzā Aḥmad Shīrāzī, Vaqāyi⊂ Nigār, Tārīkh-i Qājārīya, MS., extracts in Muḥammad, Khān-Bahādur, “Yak Shakhṣ-i Muhimm yā Mirzā Taqī Khān Atabāk,” Armaghān 15,4 (1313/1934), 296; for the office of amir(-i) niẓām, see Encyclopedia Iranica [EIr] (by A. Amanat).Google Scholar

2 For Amir Kabir's reforms, see ādamīyat, F., Amīr Kabīr va īrān, 3rd ed. (Tehran, 1348/1969);Google ScholarLorentz, J. H., “Iran's Greatest Reformer of the Nineteenth Century,” Iranian Studies 4 (1971), 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 See, for example, ⊂Alī, b. Muḥammad al-Mawārdī, al-Aḥkām al-Sulḍānīya (Cairo, 1983), chap. 2, pp. 20–26;Google ScholarFaẓlullāh, ibn Rūzbahān al-Iṣfahānī, Kitāb-i Sulūk al-Mulūk (Hyderabad, 1966), pp. 50–52;Google ScholarLambton, A. K. S., Continuity and Change in Medieval Persia (Albany, N.Y., 1988), pp. 28–68.Google Scholar

4 Almost all primary accounts, including dispatches from Coīonel Justin Sheil, the British minister, the accounts of Mary, Sheil (Glimpses of Life and Manners in Persia [London, 1856], pp. 248–53).Google Scholar and Watson, R. Grant (A History of Persia from the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century to the Year 1858 [London, 1866], pp. 398–406),Google Scholar suffer from some distortion. Dispatches by the Russian minister, Prince Dimitri Ivanovich Dolgorouki (Dolgoroukove), still remain to be explored. Qajar official accounts are even less reliable. Three studies— Iqbal, ⊂A., Mīrzā Taqī Khān Amīr Kabīr [Tehran, 1340/1961], pp. 310- 84];Google ScholarMakki, H., Amīr Kabīr, 5th ed. [Tehran, 1360/1981], pp. 411–508;Google Scholar and ādamīyat, , Amīr Kabīr, pp. 672–746)—areGoogle Scholar valuable for their documentation. Khān, Malik Sāsānī, Sīyāsatgarān-i Dawra-yi Qājār, 2 vols. [Tehran, 1346/1967], vol. 1, pp. 1–48, also contains some interesting correspondence. Other accounts are mostly repetitious and provide good samples of conspiratorial obsession.Google Scholar

5 Amanat, A., Resurrection and Renewal; The Making of the Babi Movement in Iran 1844—1850 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1989), pp. 372–416.Google Scholar

6 For Ashtiyani's involvement in the downfall of Amir Kabir, see Muḥammad, Ḥasan Khān I⊂timād al-Salḍana, ṣadr al-Tawārīkh, ed. Mushīrī, M. (Tehran, 1349/1970), pp. 295–96.Google Scholar

7 Gulistan Library, album 108/161, Jahan Khanum Mahd ⊂Ulya to Nasir al-Din Shah, n.d., Khān, Malik Sāsānī, Siyāsatgarān, vol. 2, p. 47.Google Scholar

8 Muḥammad, Ḥasan Khān I⊂timad al-Salḍana, Khalsa, Mashhūr bi Khwābnāma, ed. Katīrā⊃ī, M. (Tehran, 1348/1969), pp. 35–36.Google Scholar

9 Mahd, ⊂Ulya to Nasir, al-Din Shah, ādamīyat, Amīr Kabīr, pp. 661–63.Google Scholar

10 Lambton, , Continuity and Change, p. 230.Google Scholar

11 Mahd, ⊂Ulya to Nasir, al-Din Shah, ādamīyat, Amīr Kabīr, pp. 661–63.Google Scholar

12 Later reports blamed Mahd ⊂Ulya's lust and unsatisfied sexual passion for Amir Kabir for the deterioration in relations between them. Bāmdād, M. (Tārīkh-e Rijāl-i īrān[Tehran, 1347—1351 /1968—1972], 4: 326–27) displays the sex biases of the secondary sources.Google Scholar See also ādamīyat, , Amīr Kabīr, pp. 658, 702.Google Scholar

13 Dūst, ⊂Alī Khān Mu⊃ayyir al-Mamālik (Yāddāshthā-i az Zandigāni-yi Khuṣūṣī-yi Nāṣir al-Dīn Shāh, 1st ed. [Tehran, n.d.], pp. 175–76) even quotes Nasir al-Din Shah on this point, but the 2d ed. (published by Nashr-i Tarikh-i Iran [Tehran, 1362/1983]) omits this confession.Google Scholar See also ṣadr al-Tawārīkh, p. 216.Google Scholar

14 Gulistan Library (now in the Iran Ministry of Foreign Affairs), album no. 161/108, Sāsāni, Sīyāsatgarān vol. I, pp. 47–48.Google Scholar

15 See, for example, Gobineau, A. J., Trois ans en Asie (Paris, 1923), vol. I, pp. 266–72;Google Scholarlqbal, , Amir Kabir, pp. 95–100;Google ScholarSheil, , Glimpses, p. 200;Google Scholar–Amanat, .Google Scholar

16 ⊂Abbās, Mīrzā Mulk ārā, Sharḥ-i Ḥāl, ed. Navā⊃ī, ⊂A., 2d ed. (Tehran, 1355/1976), pp. 43–47; ⊂A. Iqbāl's introduction to the same work (pp. 17–24); and FO 60/163. Sheil to Palmerston, no. 182. Tehran, 30 Oct. 1851.Google Scholar

17 Ghani Collection, Sterling Memorial Library, Yale University, Series IIIA, no. 191.

18 Muḥammad, Taqī Sipihr, Nāsikh al-Tawārīkh (Qājārīya) (Tehran, 1385/1965), 3: 381.Google Scholar

19 Majlis Library, introd. to ⊂Abbās, Mīrzā, Sharḥ-i Ḥāl, pp. 21–22.Google Scholar

20 l⊂timad, al-Salṯana, Khalsa, p. 36. The reliability of many reports in this semi-fictional work is debatable. The quoted passage, presumably related by his father, however, is too specific to be a fabrication, or even hearsay.Google Scholar

21 Gulistan Library, ādamīyat, , Amītr Kabīr, p. 675. This note must have been written on 10 Muharram 1268/6 Nov. 1851, which is the day of ⊂āshūrā.Google Scholar

22 Vaqāyi⊂, Nigār, Tārīkh Qājārīya,Google Scholar in Armaghān, 15,4: 295.Google Scholar

23 FO 60/169, Sheil to Palmerston, no. 9, Tehran, 16 Jan. 1852, enclosure 2, Nasir al-Din Shah to Amir Kabir, trans. Ronald Thomson. Sheil enclosed this and another royal “autograph” (i.e., note) to the same report in which he conveyed the news of Amir Kabir's murder so that Palmerston could “form an estimate of the monarch's character.” The originals of these letters were given to him by Amir Kabir himself and were returned to him “at his request on his departure from Tehran.”

24 Gulistan Library, collection no. 249, Iqbāl, , Amīr Kabīr, pp. 312–13.Google Scholar

25 Gulistan Library, collection no. 249, Iqbāl, Amīr Kabīr, pp. 313–14.Google Scholar

26 FO 60/169, Sheil to Palmerston, Tehran, 16 Jan. 1852, enclosure 3, “Autograph note from the Shah to the Ameer-i Nezam” (written 15 or 16 Nov. 1852). A recapitulated version appears in Sipihr, , Qājārīya 3: 384.Google Scholar

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid., 384–85Google Scholar

29 Gulistan Library, collection no. 249, 22 Muharram 1268 (15 Jan. 1852), Iqbāl, , Amī Kabīr, pp. 319–20.Google Scholar

30 Gulistan Library (now in Iran Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Muḥarram 1268 (Jan. 1852), Sāsānī, , Sīyāsatgarān, pp. 2–3,Google Scholar and Iqbāl, , Amīr Kabīr, pp. 315–17;Google Scholarcf., Sipihr, Qājārīya, 3: 385. Date in the original was mistakenly entered as 1267/1851 presumably, as Iqbāl asserts, as a result of Amir Kabir's emotional stress. Only Amir Kabir's responses to the twelve conditions have survived.Google Scholar

31 Iran Ministry of Foreign Affairs, copies of foreign correspondence, vol. 19, Mirza Muhammad ⊂Ali Shirazi to foreign envoys in Tehran. 24 Muharram 1268 (19 Nov. 1851).

32 FO 60/164, Sheil to Palmerston, no. 203, Tehran, 18 Nov. 1851.

33 Gulistan Library (now in Iran Ministry of Foreign Affairs), album no. 161, document 108, Sāsānī, , Sīyāsatgarān, vol. 1, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

34 Sipihr, (Qājārīya 3: 385–87) adds what most probably is his own criticism of Amir Kabir: “And your claim that you have removed all places of refuge [i.e., basts, sanctuaries], both religious and royal, is indeed a major betrayal of religion and the state.”Google Scholar

35 Ibid.

36 FO 60/169. Sheil to Palmerston. no. 9. Tebran, 16 Jan. 1852, enclosure. “Statement showing the amount of the Military Forces” (attached to Nasir al-Din's note to Amir Nizam, 15 or 16 Nov. 1851).

37 FO 60/164, Sheil to Palmerston, no. 209, Tehran, 21 Nov. 1851.

38 FO 60/164, Sheil to Palmerston, no. 203, Tehran, 18 Nov. 1851.

39 Sipihr, , Qājārīya, 3: 387–88. Mirza Ya⊂qub Khan, father of the renowned Malkum Khan, was the Persian first secretary of the Russian mission and himself a Russian protégé.Google Scholar

40 Gulistan Library, album 249, lqbāl, , Amīr Kabīr, pp. 322–23.Google Scholar Almost proverbial, the quotation is the first hemistich of a verse in a famous qaṣīda in praise of ⊂Ali the first Imam, by the 16th-century Persian poet ⊂Urfi Shirazi. The second hemistich, though not quoted, is equally telling, given Amir Kabir's futile attempts to take refuge in foreign missions: “How foolishly I try to take refuge in a glass [house]” (man ablahāna gurīzam dar ābginih ḥiṣār) Qaṣā⊇id-i ⊂⊂Urfi (Lucknow, 1966), p. 15.Google Scholar

41 See Elr, s.v. Amīn al-Daola, ⊂Abdullāh Khan, and s.v. āqāsī, Hajji Mirza by A. Amanat. The safe passage in 1846 for the powerful Davalu chief Allahyar Khan Asaf al-Dawla, one time premier to Fath ⊂Ali Shah; Bahman Mirza's Russian shelter in 1847; and Nun's British protection in 1848, were other examples.

42 FO 60/164, Sheil to Palmerston, no. 209.

43 Ibid.

44 Hurewitz, J. C., ed., The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics, 2 vols. (New Haven, Ct., 1975), vol. 1, pp. 236–37.Google Scholar

45 FO 60/164, no. 209. “Again” in the above passage presumably implies that earlier Sheil had shown some reluctance to intervene.

46 FO 60/164, Sheil to Palmerston, no. 214, Tehran, 26 Nov. 1851, enclosure, Sheil to Dolgorouki, Tehran, 21 Nov. 1851.

47 Ibid.

48 FO 60/164, Sheil to Palmerston, no. 209.

49 Iran, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, copies of correspondence, Mirza Aqa Khan Nuri to Persian minister plenipotentiary in Petersburg, Iqbāl, , Amīr Kabīr, pp. 336–37.Google Scholar

50 FO 60/164, Sheil to Palmerston, no. 209.

51 Ibid.

52 Sheil, , Glimpses, p. 250.Google Scholar

53 No. 42, Thursday 26 Muharram 1268. The same communique also announced for the first time Mirza Aqa Khan Nuri's appointment to the premiership.

54 Iran Ministry of Foreign Affairs, copy of correspondence, 26 Muharram 1268/ 21 Nov. 1851, ādamīyat, , Amīr Kabīr, pp. 704–5.Google Scholar

55 Waqāyi⊂ Ittifāqīya, no. 44, 10 Safar 1268/7 Dec. 1851.

56 FO 60/164, Sheil to Palmerston, no. 212, Tehran, 22 Nov. 1851.

57 FO 60/164, no. 212; Russian correspondence of the period, if and when it becomes accessible, could throw further light on Dolgorouki's position.

58 FO 60/164, Sheil to Palmerston no. 214.

59 Meerza Tekkee Khan (Ameer Nizam) to Lt. Colonel Sheil, 22 Nov. 1851, enclosure no. 5, Shell to Palmerston, FO 60/164, no. 214. Another translation of the same letter, with minor variations, is attached to FO 60/209, Murray to Clarendon, no. 63, Baghdad, 14 July 1856. It bears the date Thursday, Muharram 28, 1268/ November 22, 1851. The Christian date corresponds to the Thursday, but 28 Muharram fell on a Friday. This, however, could be an error in reading the lunar date, which ought to be Muharram 27. Ironically, at the height of the dispute over granting diplomatic asylum to the celebrated Hashim Khan Nuri that led to the break in relations and the Anglo—Persian war of 1856, Charles Murray, the British minister in Tehran (and afterwards in Baghdad), produced this letter to prove to London that it was advisable to maintain the practice of giving protection to Persian subjects.

60 This phrase appears in Murray's version and seems to be more accurate than “I have not power to write more” in the translation given earlier.

61 Watson, (History, pp. 401–2),Google Scholar who as the secretary of the mission had access to all correspondence, preferred not to make reference to this written petition though an undertone of remorse is discernible in his pages. Remarkably, there is no mention of the episode in ādamīyat's, Amīr Kabīr (pp. 702–11) either, though perhaps for different reasons. Although he made ample use of Sheil's dispatch FO 60/164, no. 214, and its enclosures (e.g., p. 723), there is no reference to enclosure 5, which contains the text of Amir Kabir's petition. Such selective treatment is consistent with Adamiyat's overall glorification of Amir Kabir. No matter how desperate and demoralized his heroic, but ahistorical, Amir Kabir was, he could not have been allowed by his biographer to seek refuge in a foreign mission, least of all a British one.Google Scholar

62 Sheil's account leaves much to be explained. Curiously, his attempt to camouflage his conduct in his dispatch to the Foreign Office seems rather clumsy. His reports on the fall of Amir Kabir consistently fell short of giving the whole picture. His pretext of not wishing to “fatigue” Palmerston with details was Out of character with a seasoned diplomat like himself.

63 Glimpses, p. 251. The use of the present tense in the last sentence is all too problematic since it could confirm the author's prior knowledge of what might befall Amir Kabir, a confirmation that would contradict Justin Sheil's later claim of being totally uniformed.Google Scholar