I seek refuge in God from the accursed Satan
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Shah's regime and the Constitution
Now, they (pro-Shah governments) have resorted to certain tactics and are in a frenzy regarding what we and the nation want: that is, the first principle (of this movement) stating that the nation does not want the Pahlavi regime and the Shah and that it renounces the Pahlavi dynasty. The previous prime minister «1» in his time reasoned that they (military agents) killed the people because they would shout unconstitutional slogans! What he meant was that the people were saying" Death to the Shah" and" We don't want the Shah"- and this was against the Constitution.
Well, first we must set one angle from which to approach the issue and then we will analyze it to see if these slogans were really unconstitutional or not. One such viewpoint is to ask if anyone who says any anti-Constitution slogan should be machine-gunned and killed. Or, are there laws regulating such activities? According to the law, what should be done to someone who has, presumably, opposed the Constitution? Secondly, let us examine which act constitutes a constitutional infringement: the nation shouting slogans, or, the Shah being the Shah? We are now discussing the present Constitution (which says that): If there is a king and dynasty empowered by the constitutional law which stipulates that the nation should elect someone king- the Shah himself confirmed this (constitutional) provision that" the monarchy is a divine gift granted to the king by the nation"- we should probe into whether the people have really invested him with such an office, in which case, if there was any hostile slogan (said against him), we could then construe that such an act constitutes a violation of the Constitution. Or, could it be that the people had no knowledge of such issues at all?
Rida Khan's coup d'etat
When Rida Khan first came to power through a coup d'etat and occupied Tehran, «2» he achieved everything at the point of a bayonet. Nobody, at that time, had any regard for the nation. Even today, they are in culpable negligence of the nation. I remember the time he grabbed the helms of power, although you, or perhaps most of you, may not have any recollection of those incidents. But I witnessed such incidents; I remember everything: how he staged the coup d'etat and came to Tehran. Initially, he pretended to be so religious and Islamic. They said that at night during Muharram, he would walk the streets barefooted mourning [for Imam Husayn (`a)]; he would attend all the takiyah «3» ceremonies held in Tehran and assert his pretensions to faith «4» and his being Islamic before the takiyah's organizer until his rule slightly gained a footing. It was like this at the beginning; then when his rule became firmly entrenched; he resorted to the use of the bayonet, went around with it and suppressed people of all walks of life. Those days were different from today; it was not like this recent year that a change has taken place in the nation that they question and oppose (the ruling system). There had never been a word uttered in protest against Rida Khan's decisions as no such possibility existed. He came (to power) with a bayonet and with it set up the Parliament, without the people knowing any of its deputies or being aware of the issues at all. Furthermore, it was not clear whether Rida Khan had really done it himself or not, because lists would be brought in from embassies, as the Shah himself admitted, written in which were names of deputies for each constituency. Their functionaries would go and deputize a group initially appointed by embassies which would provide the lists and determine the deputies. During Rida Khan's time, the British embassy held paramount importance and during his (the Shah's) time, it was the American embassy. These embassies would give the list and determine the deputies. These appointments were, in reality, made by those (foreign powers); Rida Khan and, presently, Muhammad Rida Khan would superficially second the motion. But what involvement did the people have in this?
Appointed MPs during the Constitutional and Pahlavi periods
We never had any legal Parliament recognized by the very same Constitution during the entire constitutional period. I do not know what transpired during the first term of the constitutional movement, but as far as I can remember there has never been a legal Parliament. One article in the Constitution's amendments stipulated that five mujtahids «5» to be determined by the maraji`-e taqlid [Religious Reference Authorities] should be assigned to the Parliament to oversee its affairs. If these mujtahids were not present there, the Parliament could not acquire legitimacy. During the whole constitutional period, this stipulation was observed only once, only in the first term of the Parliament- whether it was during the whole term or just halfway through it, is not within my knowledge- but if my memory serves me correctly, since about sixty years ago, such an amendment has never been applied, that is, neither have these five people ever gone to the Parliament nor have the people had any knowledge that they should deputize anyone to this end. And if ever any deputy would be elected by the people in some places like Tehran, in other places, even sometimes in Tehran itself, the deputies were perhaps completely estranged from the people. All deputies were hand-picked by the Establishment.
During all this time, we know and you know that we have never had any national deputy; there is, and was, not one single deputy in the Parliament elected by the people. None of them have been true representatives of the nation; they have all been chosen by the government and have been their (the embassy's) proteges. Lists were either brought in from the US embassy dictating to install those deputies, or, as the Shah himself put it, lists would be brought to them during his father's time. But now, he claims that it is not the case anymore and such things no longer happen! At no point in time did we ever have any legal Parliament wherein any law was ratified or passed based on the vote of a great majority. Hence, the Parliament set up during the time of Rida Shah was a rubber-stamp body whose members were determined by lists sent in by the British embassy or hand-picked by Rida Shah or imposed on the people at bayonet point. The people did not have any say in the affair.
Illegal advent of Pahlavi dynasty
So, the Parliament he established was illegal, anti-nation and unconstitutional. It was set up against the Constitution, gave Rida Shah a mandate and then deposed the Qajar king. That is, they formed a Constituent Assembly, of course, with the force of the bayonets, installed Rida Shah and the Pahlavi dynasty, and dethroned the former monarchy. This was the manner in which the Pahlavi dynasty ascended to power, and the principle upon which it was founded. «6»
Therefore, it is his statement that he is king, which is illegal and not the people's statement saying that he is not the king. What is unconstitutional was what that contemptible former minister (Sharif Imami) was saying that his forces massacred the people because they were shouting anti-nation and anti-Constitution slogans. What they meant by these anti-nation and anti-Constitution slogans were the people's cries of" Death to the Shah!" and not any other slogans. People were crying out loud" Death to the Shah! We do not want the Shah! We do not want the Pahlavi dynasty!" (For them) these slogans are anti-nation and non-nationalistic! That is, because the Iranian nation, which is supposed to be a king-loving nation, is now saying that it does not want the Shah; therefore this is an anti-nation slogan! And if the whole nation is saying it, then, which" nation" is the slogan opposed to?
"Death to the Shah" a national slogan
Indubitably, the majority of the nation, now and before, especially in the two months prior to this and after the month of Ramadan, on the day of the feast, «7» are shouting" Death to the Shah! We do not want the Shah!" This is a nationalistic slogan; the nation's slogan has been nationalistic; it is pro-nation, and not anti-nation; it is not anti-Constitution but is pro-Constitution because this Constitution does not recognize him as the monarch. He is not the king according to the Constitution. The people meant to say absolutely the same thing as the Constitution. Therefore, the people's slogans, implying that the Shah is not the king and that they do not want the Shah, have been concordant with the Constitution. So, all his vaunts of holding the monarchy, being the monarch and being this and that, all the actions he has done in the capacity of a king are against the Constitution. In addition to this principle, his reception of people as the king and his coronation as the monarch are all unconstitutional. This Constitution does not recognize him as king and when it is so, all his actions and everything ensuing from them are unconstitutional.
Legal questions about the Shah's reign
In this government, which succeeded the previous one, talks would be brought up addressing those Iranians residing outside the country, such as Europe and other places, to return if they believed in the Constitution and those who disbelieved should not! What they meant was whoever acknowledged the Shah as the king should come and those against his being king should not! «8» Their reasoning, as I have just mentioned, is wrong because it is the statements of those who oppose the Shah that conform with the Constitution, and not the statements of those who believe that the Shah should remain. This is one of the means they have resorted to which they have recurrently aired ever since- reviving the very same issue again and again; from the very start they have repeatedly stressed the idea that when the people say they do not want the Shah, such an act is tantamount to a constitutional infringement.
Presuming that these claims conformed to the Constitution and all the other snags have been smoothed out and that it was the Constitution which set the Shah upon his royal throne, still there would be some knots to be untied viewed from various aspects. One aspect is the fact that the very same people who have voted you (the Shah) to the throne based on the Constitution in which an article stipulates that the monarchy is a" divine gift" to be entrusted to the person of the king, are now saying" no" to your rule! If you dare refute the truth of this, then hold a referendum! Let there be a referendum but one without the bayonets, of course! Lift martial law and dissolve the military government and let the people vote freely. Then announce to the people that anyone who acknowledges this monarchy should assemble up north of the city and those who oppose it should gather south of the city. We will then see which part of the city will be more crowded, the north or the south? If what they say is true, then they should put it to test if they really want to abide by the Constitution; if they believe in its principles. Given that we believe that a constitutional article stipulates that the monarchy is" a divine gift granted to the king by the nation" and given that we are foregoing all the other fallacies I discussed some nights ago and that we agree with his (the Shah's) reasoning that the nation must give this gift to the person of the king. But supposing it is now the nation which comes forth and declares that it does not want this king any more, the same nation which invested him with this" gift" is now saying" no," this" no" is now constitutionally binding. That" yes" (their confirmation of his monarchy) has held true but only up to now, henceforth it is" no" to the monarchy. Therefore, based upon our assumption that the Pahlavi chain of rule was legitimate and their monarchical rule was in accordance with the Constitution, we agree to all the premises of this argument, but now the people are saying" no", so, he is now divested of his monarchical powers. Therefore, his claim to the monarchy, his appointment of a prime minister for a country and, I do not know, everything that he is doing within the powers of a monarch do not hold anymore. He does not have any right to appoint a prime minister. Hence, the prime minister is also illegal and his appointment unconstitutional.
There is yet another objection we can raise. Assuming that we, the people, installed a monarch to whom we had given our votes and brought to power. As a monarch he swore under oath that he would commit no treason, would safeguard the religion and serve the nation; that he would remain loyal to the religion and would not betray the nation- these were the oaths he took, but has he remained loyal to his oaths? If a king swore that he would not commit treason but later did, he would be divested of the monarchy. He would have violated (the law) and hence would be no longer fit to be the monarch. Has he not betrayed this country?! Has he not given America our oil gratuitously?! Has he not placed the armed forces under the control of American advisers?! Is he not in the service of America? Is he not in the service of the Soviets? If this is not the case then why are they supporting him? How come Carter is raising this hue and cry in his defense? Carter is not a cousin of his! Assuming that he is not serving the US's interests, or he is not their servant, then there is no difference between him and another ruler. How come that these people who have interests in Iran and are devouring the country's wealth, looting our oil and erecting bases for themselves as payment for the oil (they are getting), guzzling and stealing our oil and giving it to Israel which is the archenemy of Muslims and Islam, are now crawling out from every nook and cranny? If these people are not serving foreign interests and are not traitors to their country and they have not granted them (the foreigners) domination over the country, how come the foreigners have now grown so anxiously frantic? Why? Why is the British premier saying," We have interests here?" The Shah has done us service and so, in return, we must help him!" Why did he not deny this statement? How come Carter is saying:" We have given Iran arms worth eighteen billion dollars because there is danger (posed by the USSR) for us and our interests lie here!" You (US) have imposed on him 18- billion worth of arms which are useless to us, and he has served you! Isn't this a betrayal of the country? Well, he has committed treason and with it he has lost all his credibility, even if we assume that the people have not said "no" (to his rule).
Illegal contracts
All contracts which have been entered into by Iran up to now during the reigns of these two monarchs, namely Rida Shah and Muhammad Rida Shah, excluding those made in the early days of the constitutional period, are illegal, hence void, because the Parliament is not legal to approve any of them. The king is not a legitimate king to, say, propose them to the Parliament (for approval), or appoint a prime minister or inaugurate the Parliament. All these acts should be carried out according to the laws and regulations. But none of these had been based on any laws or regulations. All these contracts, these arms deals they have concluded, are null and void. They should give our money back to us and take their" scrap metal" (weapons) back. You (US) took our oil and must pay for it! Take this scrap metal back, it's all yours!
Some of the Shah's betrayals
With each contract they have entered into, they sold out Iran's fertile green pastureland. As they have reported to me in writing, they have given our rich pastureland, which had been appraised as the best in the world in terms of animal husbandry, to some people, among them the Queen of England! The country of Iran was dispossessed (of a part of its land) and then frozen red meat had to be imported in. Is it not tantamount to a betrayal of one's country? Is the" land reform program," which had completely destroyed the agriculture, not one of the greatest treacheries ever committed against the country, leaving our miserable peasants no choice but to flock into cities?! Tehran is now crammed with these unfortunate peasants who came in from all around, dwelling miserably with their families in shanties, in tents and hovels even in freezing winter! Is this not a betrayal of a nation? He has committed treason! Consequently, he is no longer the king! A king who is a traitor is not fit to be a king!
Shah's reign against the Constitution
Thus, his taking possession of the throne and the crown today, his appointment of a prime minister, his decree for the inauguration of the Parliament and its suspension- all these are against the constitutional law. The nation's cry saying they do not want the Shah conforms to the Constitution. It is not against the Constitution; rather, it is concordant with the Constitution. It is his statement, the Prime Minister's statement referring to him as" His Imperial Majesty," that is anti-Constitution. He is not" His Majesty." He is not the monarch of this country. This is one of the issues they have raised and are following up.
Another issue is their claim that once they are gone, regional stability too will be gone! «9» We will see how things will develop later. If he is gone, what stability will go, and what stability do we have now? May God grant all of you[ the audience ]success. God willing, you will be successful. You too should serve this movement which concerns Iran, in whatever capacity- those inside the country should serve domestic interests in whatever capacity and those outside the country should do whatever services are feasible such as propagation, press interviews, writing articles in the print media, because Iran and its people have been introduced in a bad light. You are duty bound; all of us are, to clarify the issues for people here, too.