Coll 28/112A ‘Persia. Tabriz – Monthly despatches of internal situation in Azerbaijan & misc. reports.’ [‎31r] (62/1237)

- 2 -
6. Oasim Agfa’s story of the excursion Xl rather thin, but I do not
4oubt that as an outline it is substantially correct. After telling
e this, at! discussed the matter of Kurdish independence with apparent
frankness# The Kurds, he said, were convinced that the action of the
’Iraqi Government against Mullah Mustafa and of the Iranian Government
against the K u rds of kerivan had been undertaken at British instigaticn.
Britain appeared to oe hostile to the idea of Kurdish independence,
the Kurds therefore would seek the support of the Russians. He
himself, he declared, while desiring independence, or at least uutonoray
for his people, was not anxious to receive it at the hands of the
Russians. He wished that the British would support the Kurdish claimji,
but, he said, ,f The British say tney will not intervene in Iranian
affairs, and yet, when we appeal to the Russians you are angry »ith usV
He repeated the usual Kurdish grievances against the Persian
Governments lack of social services in Kurdistan, lack of administrat
ion, the harshness of Iranian officers like General Hushmand Afshar,
and the profound mistrust all Kurds feel for the Tehran Government.
7. I replied that I thought the British Government would view a
movement for Kurdish independence which relied on the backing of a
foreign power more in sorrow than in anger, since it had been our
experience that the intervention of fraign states in the internal
politics of Persia was a mistake which could only bring more unrest
and unhappiness to the people of Persia themselves. I uoted in this
connection Ur. Kden’s speech in the House of Commons on August 20th.,
extracts from which have received publicity in Azerbaijan. I gave it
as my personal opinion that the British Government was not hostile
to any movement in Iran which aimed at bettering the lot of any of the
Iranian people, be they Kurds or anyone else, but that to be
ultimately successful any such movement must be Iranian, and its
leaders ought to work, as citizens of Iran, for the improvement of
conditions all over the countryt it was most unlikely that the
splitting off of small sections of Iranian territory would in the end
do any good to the inhabitants of those sections.
8. Wasim Agha said he agreed with m f and hinted that he knew
perfectly well what would be the fate of a small# w independent”
Kurdistan. He would far rather that the Kurds were citizens of a
united, strong and free Iran, cut uafortunately the Iranians would ndt
accept them as such: they treated them as aliens and rebels, neglected
their district, and when they askeu for hospitals, bombed their houses.
Ho Kurd was allowed to attain any position of importance in the
Government, the civil service and the army. He recognized, however,
that the Kurds could achieve no satisfaction from open revolt, and
hoped that on nis forthcoming visit to Tehran he would be able to
make some of the members of the Iranian Government understand the
Kurdish point of view and make tnem see the danger to Iran of
neglecting or ill-treating the Kurds.
9. Gaaim Agha naturally did not reveal what had been said at Baku
about the ways and means of achieving Kurdish Independence with
Russian support. It seems probable however that the general line is,
^ as I suggested in Tah je lz Giary No. 15 (1945), paragraph 191, that
the Kurdish movement should be co-ordinated with the activities of
the Azerbaijan Democratic Party. Ii this is so, it suggests a more
convincing reason for the recent reorganization of the Tudeh Party
under a new name than simply tnat the T u deh was generally unpopular.
The K u rdiah landowners were always hostile so the Tudeh Party, and it
is significant that one of the things most stressed by the new
Democratic Party is a peaceful settlement of agrarian disputes fair
to peasant and land-lord alike. Qasim Agha confirmed what I had
/heard