Exploring the pivotal role of oil in the social and economic development of Iran between two World Wars, the era was marked by the establishment of a modern state aimed at ensuring territorial integrity and creating a homogeneous society within defined geographical borders. Such transformative efforts led to the collapse of the Qajar dynasty and the ascent of Reza Shah Pahlavi’s centralised and authoritative government. During this period, extensive social and economic development policies radically transformed the fabric of Iranian society, notably through the state’s substantial role in industrial investment, which significantly increased the number of industrial workers. Despite these broad changes, operations in the oil industry continued as initially established, resulting in dissatisfaction among both Iranian and Indian workers. This discontent gave rise to a series of labour strikes in the 1920s, underscoring the workers’ capacity to influence the shaping of civil society. Concurrently, the imperative for oil revenue coupled with the Iranian government’s insistence on employing local labour precipitated the cancellation of the D’Arcy Agreement and the signing of a new contract in 1933. A crucial term of this contract was the ‘Iranianisation’ of the workforce, which gradually increased the presence of skilled Iranian workers within the industry. This strategic shift not only redefined employment and living conditions but also facilitated the expansion of oil towns, where policies of ethnic and employment segregation were widely implemented, reflecting the broader national goals of integration and societal standardisation.

“Origin Myths,” explores how literary historians narrated the origins of Persian and Urdu languages and literary traditions. I challenge the nationalist narratives around these traditions, of Iranian continuity and Indo-Muslim rupture, which remain dominant today. Tracing the reception of evolutionary theories and Orientalist philology in Iran and India, I analyze fundamental differences in nationalist thought in the two contexts. Iranians articulated a vision of linear language history, emphasizing continuity with pre-Islamic precursors to modern Persian which the addition of an Arabic element did not fundamentally change. On the other hand, Indian Muslims offered a contrary account of Urdu’s origins, emphasizing rupture with the pre-Islamic past and the constitutive role of Persian, Arabic, and Turkish in Urdu’s formation. Through a comparative reading of these "origin myths" I demonstrate how historically contingent the dominant narratives around Persian and Urdu were.

This chapter is a political memoir on political activism in the late 1960s, in a small town of Golpayegan. The story of political activism and intellectual life in a small town illuminates the prerevolutionary period in Iran. Similarities link political and cultural sensibilities in the modernizing capital and a “religious” town such as Golpayegan.Political Islamism or the many streams of Marxism were formed in Golpayegan through the lived experience of ordinary people. Even in the late 1960s, young high school students passionately embraced transnational experiences through books, newspapers, magazines, and the study of such foreign languages as Arabic. Other institutional mediums included schooling, transnational religious exchanges, and technology (radio and cassettes recordings). Golpayegan was a fertile zone of transnational and transregional exchange. While living in Golpayegan, the author was fascinated by the outside world. Its cultural trappings were more accessible than one might think. The author loved listening to foreign radio, in English or Arabic and Farsi, through stations based in East Berlin, Baghdad, and Peking. He also listened to BBC in Persian and read, whenever possible, Time Magazine and Newsweek.

The chapter explores the relationship between religion and nationalism in Iranian politics in two periods. In the first period (1925–79), under the autocratic rule of Pahlavi monarchs, a state-centered, secular nationalism served as the dominant ideology in promoting Iran’s national sovereignty, political integration, modernization, and socioeconomic development. These secularization policies limited the influence of the clergy in Iranian politics and society. In the second period (1979–present), a theocratic political Islam has served as the hegemonic ideology of the clerically dominated state. The postrevolutionary leaders’ stance toward nationalism, however, has not been entirely consistent or coherent. At first, they tended to condemn nationalism as contrary to the Islamic ideal of unity among believers. But, when faced with resistance against abandoning popular national symbols and rituals or supporting war with Iraq in the 1980s, they adopted a religious-nationalist ideology that combined a theocratic and supremacist vision of Islam with an emphasis on Iranian cultural identity. The chapter shows how the prevailing domestic and international circumstances, as well as ideas, selective historical narratives, and traditional cultural symbols and rituals, have been used to foster nationalism, political Islam, or an amalgam of the two as hegemonic state ideologies.