Memoirs of Masih Mohajeri from Islamic Republic Party

Masih Mohajeri
Editor in chief of Islamic Republic Newspaper
Translated by: Natali Haghverdian

Beheshti said: “Mosadegh is a good and credible person.”
This interview is a reflection on special issue of Mehrnameh in No. 25 covering Seyyed Hassan Ayat.

*Memory
* In the Holy month of Ramadan (summer of 2003) a documentary film was privately screened regarding Martyr Seyyed Hassan Ayat. Interviews were conducted. Have you seen this film?
In the name of God; I haven’t seen the film. I’ve read the articles, interviews and critics of the film. I’ve read all the comments around the film published in this magazine.

* Ms. Mehraneh, teacher of martyr Ayat’s wife commented: I have been silent for 30 years; in the past and now. The only condition that I had to be in this session was to say nothing. My question for you is: in your opinion what are the issues and secrets that might exist that this lady is not willing to disclose?

I don’t know her to say what is in her mind; however, I can say this much that when someone has something to say but she claims it will be advertising then what she has is not based on truth. If someone has been innovative and it benefits the country then it has to be said. Otherwise, these claims shall not be relied on.

*Mr. Javad Mansouri in the documentary comments: “I shall say that when in winter of 1980 Bani Sadr was appointed as Commander in Chief of the Military by Imam. He was shaking and saying: Imam is making a mistake. Who is advising him.” What is your opinion about Mr. Mansouri’s comments?

There is couple of things I would like to clear. It is not a bad thing to say that Imam Khomeini made a mistake. Imam was not innocent. Human beings make mistakes. It is wrong to believe that non-innocent people and ordinary people who have reached to a position make no mistakes. The second point is that we have to define Supreme Leader. It doesn’t mean that no one is allowed to question the Supreme Leader. It means that those with critical opinion shall approach the Supreme Leader through legal channels away from any scandal. The Leader has to establish proper channels to hear peoples’ voice but eventually he is the decision maker. He might decide to hear critics out and change his decision or to pursue his initial decision. Once the decision is made those with an opposing opinion shall surrender to the final decision of the Leader. It doesn’t mean they have to change their opinion but they have to be subjective. According to law and religious beliefs, the final decision maker is the leader. Hence, Mr. Ayat could have shared his criticism with Imam but eventually had to comply with the final decision made by him. As I know there were others who didn’t agree with Imam’s decision; however, after sharing their opinion, once Imam stick to his decision they accepted Bani Sadr as the Commander in Chief. I don’t recall that Mr. Ayat made any objection through media or other obvious channels to public opinion. I believe that he expressed his opinion in a private group for example in the Central Council of Islamic Republic Party. The third point is that I don’t know if Mr. Mansouri has criticized Mr. Ayat be this quote or praised him.

* It might be that Mr. Javad Mansouri implied that Mr. Ayat was better and more advanced compared to Imam?

This is not true. A mistake by Imam which is criticized by him doesn’t mean that Mr. Ayat was above Imam. There were many other things that Imam was above others.

* Those who have watched the film say that it starts with the statement of Dr. Seyyed Mahmoud Kashani: who assassinated Ayat? After him Mr. Ali Mohammad Besharati replied: Bani Sadr. Was Ayat really assassinated by Bani Sadr?

There are two types of answers to this question. First is that Bani Sadr and hypocrites and other anti-revolution groups were united at the time. As you might remember when June 28, 1981 and June 20, 1981 occurred and hypocrites announced armed war, Bani Sadr went hiding and then ran away with Rajavi and in Paris Rajavi became the groom of Bani Sadr and Rajavi’s wife, Ashraf Rabiyi was killed in Tehran in a team house along with Mousa Khiyabani and daughter of Bani Sader (Firouzeh Bani Sadr). This means that comments of Mr. Besharati might be true.
It means that Bani Sadr was in the heart of it all. It might mean that Bani Sadr did it himself and those who claim it shall prove it. If Mr. Besharati has claimed something without providing proofs then it is not enough. This assassination was orchestrated by hypocrites.

* Mr. Mahmoud Kashani believes that martyrdom of Mr. Hassan Ayat was not assassination, but it was premeditated murder. He doesn’t mention anything about who might have murdered him. What is your opinion about Mr. Mahmoud Kashani’s claim?

There is something that I should tell you about Mr. Mahmoud Kashani. I’m acquainted with him. He was a member of the Islamic Republic Party for a while. A key member of the party; then he was the representative of Iran in Iran and USA rights affairs. We had many meetings. He has many strengths but he makes many ungrounded comments. If he claims and then tells who was responsible then it is possible to follow it up through relevant bodies, security and information public institutions to verify his claim. Optimistically, he has shared a guess and possibility in his mind. He might have had those in mind that disagreed with him. For instance if one didn’t consider Mosadegh as the enemy then Mr. Kashani would consider him his enemy. I have written critics against Mosadegh but it doesn’t mean that if anyone praises him, then he’s the enemy. Mr. Mahmoud Kashani is the son of late Ayatollah Kashani and the disagreement between Ayatollah Kashani and Dr. Mosadegh is well known and those who slightly agree with Mosadegh are the enemies of God, the Prophet and Ayatollah Kashani and Dr. Mahmoud Kashani. I want to clear two things. First is that I didn’t believe in Mosadegh and wrote a lot of articles against him and in case anyone wrote anything in favor of Mosadegh I wrote to oppose them. In the second case I want to conclude that those who favor Mosadegh shall not be perceived as enemies. When Mir Hossein Mousavi was in charge of Islamic Republic newspaper during 1979-80, I used to collaborate with them. I was a member of the central council of the party and the newspaper belonged to it. I used to write articles and declarations which were reviewed by Mr. Behashti. I once came across an article in favor of Mosadegh and against Ayatollah Kashani. This wasn’t acceptable to me. I thought highly of Mr. Kashani. The newspaper was a body of the party and this wasn’t the trend of the party. There were people in the central council of Islamic Republic Party who supported Mosadegh including Mr. Beheshti; however, the newspaper was not supposed to print anything against Mr. Kashani. I objected to Mr. Mousavi while I provided an article against Mosadegh. He admitted his support of Mosadegh in this is where our disagreement surfaced. This was discussed in the political office of the party and final decision was made. Prior to any final decision Mr. Mousavi printed my article in the first page of the newspaper. What does this say?
This shows that he was a flexible person. This is to conclude that Dr. Mahmoud Kashani is in extreme here and accuses those who supported Mosadegh and since Mr Ayat was against Mosadegh then he concludes that this disagreement led to the order of his assassination. If he is not speculating, then he has to provide evidence for investigation.

* Now that we are talking about the political office and Islamic Republic newspaper and Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi there are two quotes in this discussion. Mr. Shojouti says: the morning of the day that Ayat was assassinated, he had secrets against Mir Hossein Mousavi which he intended to provide to the parliament, it was when he was assassinated. Mr. Javad Mansouri says: Ayad had collected evidence against Mousavi and he believed that fighting against Mousavi is far more difficult than fighting against the king. What do you think?

I was very close to Ayat. He was a key member of the central council of the party. He used to share thoughts with me and disagreed with Mosadegh; however, I’ve never heard anything of a sort from him so it can’t be true.

*Previously you mentioned that Mr. Beheshti supported Mosadeght. Please explain how?

Mr. Beheshti and many others including Mir Hossein Mousavi, during their fights and prior to the victory of Revolution were in contact with the members of Freedom Movement which were the children of Mosadegh. Later National Front derived from this movement and Mr. Bazargan, Sahabi and Yazdi and some others established their own foundation which was Iran’s Freedom Movement and Mr. Beheshti and Mousavi and many others were in contact with them but never were a member of Freedom Movement. Mr. Taleghani was a member of Freedom Movement. He supported Mosadegh as Mr. Beheshti supported him. When out disagreement appeared in the newspaper it was discussed in the political office of Islamic Republic Party. The chairman was Secretary General who was Ayatollah Beheshti at the time.

Mr. Mousavi was in the meeting as the secretary of the party’s office who supervised the operations as well but the head was Mr. Beheshti. I was a member. The issue of the article against Ayatollah Kashani published in the newspaper and my objection were discussed in the party. This is an interesting episode of the history of the revolution and that of the Islamic Republic Party where Mr. Beheshti said: Yes, Mosadegh is a good and credible person so is Mr. Kashani; however both have make mistakes. I insisted on further investigation and he agreed. Then it was decided for the political office of the party to launch an investigation on Mosadegh and Mr. Kashani. The results of this investigation were to define the state of the party.

Interesting thing is that prior to the investigation, Imam Khomeini had a speech against Mosadegh. It was then that Mr. Beheshti said that there is no need for further investigation. Mr. Beheshti and Mousavi both said that since this is the position of Imam against Mosadegh we shall comply and the criteria of the party were defined as that of Imam’s opinion.
The judgment on Mosadegh and Kashani was determined in the party. Mr. Beheshti and Mousavi were against Mosadegh but they were fair. They followed Imam’s opinion since he had more insight and his opinion was informed and precise.

*You were in the central council of the Islamic Republic Party and the political office. You were in secret and private sessions of the party on Mozafar Baghayi and discussed the relation of Mozafar Baghayi and Ayat. Could you tell us what was the result of these discussions regarding the complex situation between them?

What is obvious which was expressed by all members was the former relation of Mr. Ayat with Mozafar Baghayi and Zahmatkeshan Party. Everyone was aware of their relation but the fact that after victory of Revolution and during membership of Ayat in Islamic Republic Party he was in touch with Mozafar Baghayi was something and was still following him were not discussed. It means that Ayat had distanced himself from Mozafar Baghayi and Zahmatkeshan party. It was dictated by the circumstances.

The issue regarding this incident is that considering the spirit of Mr. Ayat and extremism in expressing his opinion when the issue of Ayat Tape occurred and Mr. Mousavi opposed it, this was discussed in the party but it was never resolved. It was customary for Mr. Ayat that once he would oppose someone he would pursue it to the end and would never resolve the issue. Mr. Mousavi wouldn’t back off his opinion till we came to the issue of Bani Sadr and the recommendation of Islamic Republic Party for Mr. Mousavi to become Minister of Foreign Affairs.

This was discussed in the central council and Mr. Ayat objected and said that the Parliament has to approve him and he will do anything in the parliament to prevent that. Mr. Beheshti said: you have no right to do that. You are a member of this party and if the party has decided that Mr. Mousavi shall be approved in the parliament then he has to be defended. You might choose not to support him. You might even vote against him but you can’t talk against him in the parliament. You should leave the party then you are free to talk against him. As long as you are a member you can take silence. These are the rules of the party.

Mr. Ayat objected and said that he will talk against Mousavi in the parliament. Mr. Beheshti was not pleased and said that in such case he will be prosecuted in the party and eventually fired from the party.

Later! Mr. Beheshti was martyred on July 28 and the session in the parliament was held with delay. Mr. Mousavi was appointed as minister of foreign affairs. Mr. Ayat acted as he promised. He paid no attention to the warning of Mr. Beheshti and his martyrdom didn’t affect him. If he had anything against Mr. Mousavi as he claimed, the parliament was the place to say it. What he said in the parliament was documented in the minutes of the parliament. Mr. Ayat was determined to make Mr. Mousavi fail. Despite his argument with Mr. Beheshti, in case he had any evidence and document he could have turned in to the party or contact members and inform us and persuade us not to candidate Mr. Mousavi for Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

He had nothing against Mr. Mousavi in the parliament except his personal issues. He had two options to provide his evidence; once in the parliament and once in the party. He had nothing, but his personal issues and that why no one took his words seriously in the parliament. He continued his erratic and dogma behavior and that was when I asked Mr. Beheshti what he wanted to do since Mr. Ayat was making a lot of people uncomfortable.

It was when we intended to hold the first congress of the party in 1981 in the summer after Holy month of Ramadan. In the congress the members of the council would be elected by the vote of the general assembly since prior to the congress the constituency board had selected the members.
Mr. Beheshti advised that since the congress was to be held we shall not take action against Mr. Ayat till then. You, who are unhappy with the approach of Mr. Ayat shall discuss the issue with other members and make them aware. Once they are aware of the situation they will not vote for him. This is the right approach. In case they seek my advice I’ll express my opinion and the final decision will be with the congress. I figured that this is the best way and firing him from the party council is not wise.

Due to the event that followed in June and the assassinations and problems, the congress was delayed and Mr. Ayat was assassinated in the summer of the same year and naturally his presence in the party was gone. It is a fact that Mr. Beheshti was not happy with Mr. Ayat and believed that he had to be eliminated through voting in the congress.

I haven’t shared these memories with anyone. Mr. Ayat passed away and we hope he rest in peace. Now that I see that everyone comes up with an allegation with no real evidence I believe that I have to share these with all. I have to be registered in the history. Now that Mr. Mousavi is in special situation in case anyone who has something to say based on evidence has to come forward even if it is against him. The argument here is not to defend Mr. Mousavi; the real argument is denying the truth. It doesn’t mean that if Mr. Mousavi is in a position that he can’t defend himself, anyone can say whatever they want. This is absurd. If I wasn’t in the middle of the council and the disagreements between Mr. Beheshti and Mr. Ayat, I wouldn’t comment. I have firsthand information otherwise I wouldn’t say. I wouldn’t share these if it wasn’t for all these ungrounded allegations against him. I didn’t say these to take a position against Mr. Ayat. I wanted to answer to those who lie. I want to tell them that there is a God, resurrection, question and answer. You have to answer to God. If Mr. Ayat had any evidence against Mr. Mousavi why didn’t he provide in the parliament and in the party council? All these indicate that he didn’t have anything. The most important thing is that was the evidence gone along with assassination of Mr. Ayat? Were you there? The police was there so investigate and have them out and published. We will surrender. I advise those who want to come up with allegations to be cautious and balanced. To support truth and not to attack those who can’t defend themselves. Let them be there and fight in their faces.

Persian Source:
Mehrnameh, No 26, Aban 1391(2012), pp: 220-222,
http://oral-history.ir/show.php?page=notions&id=203