No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Armenians and the Jangalis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2022
Extract
During World War I a movement developed in the forests of Gilan to free Iran from foreign control and internal despotism. Tsarist Russian, Soviet, Ottoman, German, and British forces all attempted to influence the course of events in Gilan, often through the use of force. From their strongholds in the forests, or jangal—whence their name—the Jangalis gained the strength several times, first with the weakening of Russian forces in the region after the 1917 Russian Revolution and then with the assistance of the Iranian Communist Party after the arrival of Soviet troops in Gilan in May 1920, to take control of Rasht, Anzali, and other towns in Gilan province. They even harbored hopes of marching on Tehran to take control of the Iranian central government. This nationalist movement initially had a formal organizational structure under the name ittihād-i Islām, but basically was under the control of the charismatic Mirza Kuchik Khan, along with several other powerful leaders.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association For Iranian Studies, Inc 1997
Footnotes
*
I wish to express my thanks to the following libraries and archives for their kind assistance: Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) Archives (Watertown, Mass.); Krikor and Clara Zohrab Information Center of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America; Presbyterian Historical Society (PHS, Philadelphia); Public Record Office (Kew Gardens, Great Britain); U.S. National Archives (Washington, D.C.); and the New York Public Library. I am grateful to Dr. Cosroe Chaqueri for our lively discussions concerning the Jangalis, though he bears no responsibility for the ideas expressed in the following article. Finally, I appreciate the comments of this journal's anonymous reviewer. A version of this article was presented at the December 1995 Middle Eastern Studies Conference in Washington, D.C.
References
1. By the end of 1917, the name had been modified to ittiḥād-i lslām-i Īrān.
2. For general information and bibliography on the Jangalis, see Chaqueri, Cosroe, The Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 1920–1921: Birth of the Trauma (Pittsburgh and London: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Encyclopaedia of Islam, s.v. “Kūčak Khān Djangalī” (V. L. Ménage); Afary, Janet, “The Contentious Historiography of the Gilan Republic in Iran: A Critical Exploration,” Iranian Studies 28, nos. 1–2 (Winter/Spring 1995): 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ravasani, Shahpur, Nahżat-i Mīrzā Kūchik Khān Jangalī va avvalīn jumhurī-yi shūrāɔī dar Īrān (Tehran, 1363 Sh./1984)Google Scholar.
3. No doubt, interesting material exists in the Russian/Soviet state archives, which I hope to study in the future. The descendants of Grigor Eghikean have copies of Eghikean's correspondence but have not given permission for its use.
4. Ghougassian, Vazken Sarkis, “The Emergence of the Armenian Diocese of New Julfa in the Seventeenth Century” (Ph. D. diss., Columbia U., 1995), 29Google Scholar, 30–31, 61–65. The Armenian population of Gilan has fluctuated greatly over the centuries.
5. There are no precise state census figures concerning the number of Armenians in Gilan at this time. There are estimates by Armenians and non-Armenians, as well as figures based on church records (Maksapetean, A., ‘“Ŗashti hay gaghut'ӗ': mi k'ani khōsk',” Alik’ (Tehran, 28 May 1932): 2Google Scholar; Goroyeants, Nazar H., Parskastani hayerӗ (Tehran: Modern Press, 1968; repr. of 1898), 310–11Google Scholar; Frangean, E[ruand]., Atrpatakan (Tbilisi: Hermes, 1905)Google Scholar; Amurean, A[ndre]. [Ohanean, Ter], H. H'. Dashnakts'ut'iwnӗ Parskastanum, 1890–1918 (Tehran: Tparan Alik', 1950), 119Google Scholar; Rabino, H[yacinth]. L[ouis]. [Borgomale, di], “Les provinces Caspiennes de la Perse: le Guīlān,” Revue du monde musulman 32 (1916–17): 79Google Scholar, 140; Anhasht, , “T'ght'akts'ut'iwnner,” Mitk’ (Tabriz, 21 March 1914), 3Google Scholar; “Ardzanagrut'iwn Atrpatakani shrjanakan zhoghovin,” 1–24 February 1906, in Hrach Tasnapetean, ed., N'iwter H[ay]. H‘[eghap'okhakan]. Dashnakts'ut'ean patmut'ean hamar, D hator (1982), 241; Taparakan [Eprem Dawtean], “H[ay]. H‘[eghap'okhakan]. Dashnakts'ut'ean Gilani komitei shrjanum eghats khmbakneri t'win u andamneri k'anakut'iwnӗ” [n.d., 1905?], 289–90, and Kayts [pseudonym], “Vichakagrut'iwn Enzelii hay hasarakut'ean,” [n.d., 1905?], 292 in ibid.; Terterean, Eghiazar, “Namak Rashtits',” Alik’ (25 January 1932), 5Google Scholar.
6. Chaqueri, Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 15.
7. Aram Arkun, “Armenian-Iranian Relations in Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Iran,” presented at the conference “Old Neighbors, New Perspectives: Armenia and Iran in Modern Times,” University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 9 November 1996.
8. For a short biography and bibliography, see Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. “Ep'rem Khan” (Aram Arkun).
9. G. Astghuni [Grigor Eghikean], “Inch'pēs kazmwets’ Parskastani S. D. Kusakts'ut'iwnӗ,” in S[ōts'ial]. D[emokrat]. Hnch'akean Kusakts'ut'ean Fransayi Shrjan, H'ushardzan nuiruats Sots'ial Demokrat Hnch'akean Kusakts'ut'ean k'ar'asunameakin (Paris: S[6ts'ial]. D[emokrat]. Hnch'akean Kusakts'ut'ean Fransayi Shrjan, 1930), 191–97; Qosroe]. Chaqueri, , “The Role and Impact of Armenian Intellectuals in Iranian Politics, 1905–1911,” Armenian Review 41:2–162, (Summer 1988): 10–14Google Scholar, 21–26.
10. Fakhraɔi, Ibrahim, Gīlān dar junbish-i mashrūṭīyat (Tehran: Intisharat va Amuzish-i Inqilab-i Islami, 1371 Sh./1992), 226–28Google Scholar, 250–51.
11. Amurean, H. H'. Dashnakts'ut'iwnӗ, 97.
12. Ibid., 98–102.
13. [pseudonym], Sarmat, “H'arut'iwn Galsteants',” Zang (Tabriz, 30 November 1919): 4Google Scholar.
14. Sepuh, S., “Enker H'arut'iwn H'arut'iwnean,” Hnch'ak (Providence, R.I., February 1935), no. 2, pp. 12–13Google Scholar.
15. M. M., “Grigor E. Eghikean,” in Sōts'fial]. Dēm[okrat]. Hnch‘[akean]. Kus[akts'ut'ean]. Amer[ikay].-i Shrjan, Hnch'akean taregirk’ (Amerikayi shrjani) (Providence: Sōts‘[ial]. Dēm[okrat]. Hnch‘[akean]. Kus[akts'ut'ean]. Amer[ikay].-i Shrjan, 1931), 187; Hashimi, Muhammad Sadr, Tārīkh-i jarāyid va majallāt-i Īrān, vol. 1 (Isfahan, 1327 Sh./1948), 343–44Google Scholar; Khan-Azat, Ruben [Nshan, Karapetean], “Hay h'eghap'okhakani h'usherits',” Hayrenik’ amsagirl, no. 5 (77) (March 1929): 107Google Scholar; Marksist [pseud.], “Prōf. H'arut'iwn Shēk'ērchean,” in Hnch'akean taregirk', 89.
16. These included the Armenian Constitutional Democrat Party (Hay Sahmanadrakan Ramkavar Kusaktsutiwn) and the Armenian Populist Party (Hay Zhoghorvrdakan Kusaktsutiwn) ([pseud.], Murch, “Parskahay keank': anmiabanut'ean ogin,” Nor keank’ (Tehran, 26 October 1922): 2Google Scholar; ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV] 601–7 H. H'. Dashnakts'utean ardzanagrut'iwnner ӗdh.[ӗndhanur] zhoghovneri 1919 Rasht, 12th meeting, 26 June 1919; Eghikean, Grigor, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ ew nra u hayeri h'araberut'iwnnerӗ,” Hayrenik’ amsagir 16, no. 12 (192) (October 1938): 102Google Scholar; idem, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': tasneweōt’ amis bolshevikneri tirapetut'ean tak,” Hayrenik’ amsagir 17, no. 8 (200) (June 1939): 148 and ibid., 17, no. 10 (202) (August 1939): 49.
17. Hovannisian, Richard, Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), 45Google Scholar, 51–52, 247–51.
18. V., , “Namak Parskastanits',” Rasht, 14 February 1916, in Mshak (Tbilisi, 26 February 1916), 4Google Scholar.
19. Great Britain, Public Record Office, Foreign Office (henceforth F.O.) 248/1149, L. de B. Maclaren, Acting Vice Consul Rasht, no. 3, to Charles Marling, Minister Tehran, “Resht News for the Period ending 26 August 1916,” 13 February 1917; PHS, Record Group (RG) 91, box 1, folder 15: subseries 3: Station Reports 1916–1917: [n.a.], “Resht Church and Evangelistic Work, June 1916-June 1917; Ivan Otis Wilson, “Narrative of Resht Station for 1916–1917.” Cholera began to spread in the area, while local Armenians, missionaries, and others collected aid for the refugees.
20. Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, Grigor], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang (4 October 1919): 2–3Google Scholar. The letter's date is given in the form 35/1/4, which appears to be a lunar date. If it is in the sequence year, day, month, then it falls in January 1917, while if it is in the sequence year, month, day, then the proper date is the end of October 1916. Eghikean also mentioned an unofficial letter from a German or Austrian officer named Captain Frederick, urging the Ittihad-i Islam to punish the Armenians. Unlike other cases of documents published by Eghikean, I was unable to find copies of the above-mentioned letters in the British archives, or any references in the other sources at my disposal, though this does not disprove their authenticity. Kuchik Khan's immediate response is also not available, but his behavior in the next few years proved his benevolence towards the Armenians.
21. Hüseyin Efendi, from a family of Tabriz, attended university in Constantinople and became a second lieutenant in the Ottoman army. In 1916 he arrived with war materials to aid the Jangalis (P.R.O., F.O. 248/1244, “Mirza Reza Khan's report,” 28 May 1919). Eghikean mentions an Ottoman officer named Roshan Bey, of the rank of binbaşi or major, who visited the Jangalis several times before the Russian Revolution (this may be the same person as the Rowshani Bek mentioned by Bahar, Malik al-Shoсaraɔ, Tārīkh-i mukhtaṣar-i aḥzāb-i siyāsī-yi Īrān, vol. 1 [Tehran: Amir Kabir, 1358 Sh./1979], 167Google Scholar, fn.'l), while after this revolution Major Yusuf Zia ed- Din (alias Yusuf Talibzadah), who is said to have become friends with Kuchik Khan earlier in Tehran (Gilak, Muhammad cAli, Tārīkh-i inqilāb-i jangal [Rasht: Nashr-i Gilakat, 1371 Sh./1992], 388Google Scholar), led a special military mission from the Ottoman Sixth Army to the Jangalis (Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, Grigor], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang (Tabriz, 20 September 1919): 2Google Scholar; F.O. 248/1189, Kennion, Kermanshah, teleg. no. 12 27 September 1917; Karabekir, Kazim, Istiklāl harbimiz, 2nd ed. (Istanbul: Tiirkiye Yayinevi, 1969), 770Google Scholar. Hiiseyin Efendi is described as fighting in the Jangali ranks after a mission to bring arms and gifts from Enver Pasha, Ottoman minister of war, probably in 1918, and in fact died there in battle. A good deal of correspondence took place between the highest ranking commanders of the Ottoman army and the Jangalis in 1918, and gifts were periodically sent to the latter (Ibrahim, Fakhraɔi, Sardār-i jangal: Mīrzā Kūchik Khān [Tehran: Javidan, 1351 Sh./1972], 90–91Google Scholar; Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, Grigor], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang (11 October 1919): 3–4Google Scholar; F.O. 248/1244: three enclosures in Assistant Political Officer, Rasht, P.R. 80, to Political Officer, Norperforce, Qazvin, 12 May 1919; enclosures in F.O. no. 132, 17 August 1919, and enclosures in M.C., F.O. no. 142 [Tabriz?], 15 September 1919; F.O. 244/1203, Ian Moir, Acting Vice Consul, Rasht, to [Lt. Col. Kennion], Political Officer, Norperforce, Qazvin, 14 October 1918 enclosed in Ian Moir, no. 218, to Percy Cox, Minister Tehran, 15 October 1918; Ybert-Chabrier, Edith, “Gilan, 1917–1920: The Jengelist Movement According to the Memoirs of Ihsan Allah Khan,” Central Asian Survey 2, no. 3 (November 1983): 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fn. 41. Eghikean, Fakhra'i, and the British mention Ottomans fighting in the Jangali forces in 1918 (see also F.O. 248/1203, telegram no. 98, 19 February 1918, Tehran), some of whom were prisoners of war escaped from Russian captivity. In 1919, there were still Turkish officers with the Jangalis (F.O. 248/1244, P[ercy]. Cox, telegram no. 321R, 30 April 1919). According to Eghikean, there were even Jangali volunteers who went to join Ottoman forces in Iran in 1918 under Seyyid Ashraf, under the direction of Mustafa Khan Qazvini (Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, Grigor], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang [1 November 1919]: 2)Google Scholar. On the other hand, Chaqueri feels the Soviet Iranist M. S. Ivanova “fabricates the novel accusation” of volunteers being sent by Kuchek Khan to the Kermanshah-Hamadan front to aid Turco-German forces ﹛Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 119).
22. Chaqueri, Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 51; Bahar, Tārīkh-i mukhtasar, 167, fn. 1; Divsalar, Yahya, “Ittiḥād-i Islām va paydāyish-i jangal,” Armaghān 34, nos. 4–5 (Tir-Mordad 1344/July 1965): 224Google Scholar; Landau, Jacob M., The Politics of Pan-Islam: Ideology and Organisation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 91Google Scholar; Fakhraɔi, Sardār-i jangal, 22–24; Ybert-Chabrier, “Gilan,” 42, 44.
23. Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, Grigor], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang (18 April 1919): 2Google Scholar; ibid. (3 May 1919): 2; ibid. (9 November 1919): 2–3; Chaqueri, Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 62, 65, 139–40.
24. Vasakuni, [Eghikean, Grigor], “Mi ayts'elut'iwn Mirza K'ochuk Khanin,” Zang (March 13, 1920): 2Google Scholar. Chaqueri interprets a series of letters the British intercepted between Ottoman representatives and Kuchik Khan (F.O. 248/1203), in which terms for cooperation are advanced by each side, as evidence for the opportunistic nature of the Ottoman-Jangali relationship (Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 134–37). In February 1918, Kuchik Khan complained in particular that little concrete military aid had been sent by the Ottomans. After the Ottomans signed an armistice ending their participation in the First World War, Kuchik Khan refused to join the “Army of Islam” led by the Young Turk leader Nuri Pasha in the Caucasus, evidently fearing its designs on Gilan and Iranian Azerbaijan (Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, Grigor], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang [November 1, 1919]: 2)Google Scholar. The Jangalis also did not enter into an alliance with the new Republic of Azerbaijan despite the efforts of Major Yusuf Zia ed- Din, though they did accept gifts of military supplies (V., V. [Eghikean, Grigor], “Mi tari Gilanum (k'aghak'akan ants'k'rӗ 1919 t'.), Zang [July 17, 1920]: 3Google Scholar). See also further below.
25. On Ottoman propaganda at the beginning of the war, see Chaqueri, Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 48—49; on persecutions of Armenians, H'. Sarō, ‘T'urk’ hamat'uranakan k'aghak'akanut'iwnӗ ew Irani Atrpatakanӗ: t'r'uts'ik aknark,” Hayrenik’ amsagir 25, no. 5 (262) (September-October 1947): 97; on the Ittihad-i Islam clubs, see Kasravi, Ahmad, Tārīkh-i hijdah sālih-yi Āẕflrbāyjān (Tehran: Amir Kabir, 1371 Sh./1992), 748–49Google Scholar, 763, 787, 792; F.O. 248/1216, Georg to Bristow, 21 July 1918, enclosure: “Translation of a letter received from Tabriz dated 7th July“; F.O. 248/1216, Vladica, Tabriz, to A. O. Wood, 14 November 1918, Tehran. Kasravi states that Major Zia ed-Din, the same man who led an Ottoman military mission to the Jangalis, played an important role in establishing the Tabriz clubs.
26. F.O. 248/1149, Maclaren, “Resht News for the Period ending 9 September 1916.“
27. Grigor Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 95. Amurean, H. H\ Dashnakts'ut'iwnӗ, 108 gives a list of over ten Armenians who left Gilan in a group to fight on the Russian side against the Ottomans.
28. ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV] 597–61 Kilan Kōmitē to Shahstani K[edronakan], Kōmitē, no. 19, 11 August 1917; 597–63 Kilan Kōmitē to Shahstani K[edronakan], Kōmitē, no. 22, 16 August 1917. According to the latter report: “The Forest Dwellers [Jangalis] have formed a political party named the ittiḥād-i Islām whose program still has not appeared. They propagate the idea of Pan-Islamism, show a hostile attitude towards the Armenians, and find in the expulsion of the latter the salvation of the land of Islam. Their newspaper, named Jangal, is sent separately, and in it we find articles directed at the Armenians.” Furthermore, there were rumors that the Jangalis were planning to join Ottoman forces, attack the Russians, and then together with local Muslims declare the Caucasus an independent Muslim country.
29. ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV] 598–27 Hay Mard [Grigor Egheazarean] (president, subcommittee), S. T. Hovhannesean (secretary), Mshak [Kosti Arzumanean], Mtrak [Jumshud Ghazarosean], and Suren [Khachatur Khachatrean], “Teghēkagir H[ay]. H'feghap'okhakan]. Dashnakts'ut'ean Enzēlu Ent'akōmite'i gortsunēut'ean, sksats 1917 t‘[uakan]. marti 31-its’ minch'ew 1918 t‘[uakan]. marti 1-ӗ“; ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV], 598–28 “Ardanagrut'iwnner Gilani vets'erord shrjanayin zhoghovi, 1918 t‘[uakan], p'etruar 28-its'-mart 4-t‘[uakan].
30. ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV] 597–34 Gilan Kōmitē, no. 6, to Shahstani K[edronakan]. Kōmitē, May 27, 1917; ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV] 598–27. On the Rasht and Anzali committees, see Dailami, Pezhmann, “The Bolsheviks and the Jangali Revolutionary Movement, 1915–1920,” Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 31, no. 19 (January-March 1990): 46Google Scholar.
31. “Ayālat-i Gīlān va Tavālish” (no. 623, 12 Shaс;ban 1336/23 May 1918), in Keshavarz, Fathullah, cotnp., Nahżat-i jangal va ittiḥād-i Islām: asnād-i maḥramāna va guzārishhā (Tehran: Asnad-i Milli-yi Iran, 1371 Sh./1992), 97–99Google Scholar; Giwlkhandanean, Apraham, “Bakui herosamartӗ,” Hayrenik’ amsagir 19, no. 10 (226) (August 1941): 105–6Google Scholar. On the situation in Baku and surrounding areas, see Hovannisian, Armenia on the Road to Independence, 112–13; Ronald Grigor Suny, The Baku Commune, 1917–1918 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), 20, 170, 177, and passim; Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russian Azerbaijan, 1905–1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 113–15 and passim; Stepanyan, Gevorg Srapioni, “Nukhi ev Aresh gavar'neri hayut'yan kotoratsnern u ink'napashtpanut'yunӗ (1917 dektember-1918 april),” Ējmiatsin 51, no. 1 (January 1996): 105–123Google Scholar.
32. ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV] 589–15 Gilan Kōmitē, no. 34, to Shastani K[edronakan]. K[ōmitē]., 31 January 1918; 598–56 H'. Movsisean, Rasht, to Shah [stani] K[edronakan]. K[ōmitē]., 30 January 1918; ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV] 598–18 Anzali, to Shahstan K[edronakan]. K[omite]., 9 February 1918; “Ayālat-i Gīlān va Tavālish,” no. 623, 98.
33. ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV] 598–18.
34. ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV] 589–15 and 598–56; [сAli, Ahmad] Sipihr, Muvarrikh al-Dawla, Īran darjang-e buzurg, 1914–1918 (Tehran: n.p., 1336 Sh./1957), 390Google Scholar.
35. ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV] 597–63; ARF Archives Mas E [Part V] 602–54 Pō'rt Artur Ent'akōmitē no. 10, to Gilan Kōmitē, 30 May 1920; ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV], 598–28; V., V. [Eghikean, Grigor], “Mi tari Gilanum (k'aghak'akan ants'k'er 1919 t‘[uakanin].),” Zang (31 July 1920): 4Google Scholar.
36. These ties were pragmatic, not ideological in nature (G. Astghuni [Grigor Eghikean], “Inch'pēs kazmwets',” 193–94).
37. For a short biography, see Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. “Elikean” (Aram Arkun); on his writings, see Aram, Arkun, “Grigor Eghikian as Writer and Journalist,” in Chaqueri, Cosroe, ed., The Armenians of Iran: The Paradoxical Role of a Minority in a Dominant Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997)Google Scholar.
38. V., V. [Eghikean, Grigor], “Mi tari Gilanum (k'aghak'akan ants'k'erӗ 1919 t'.), Zang (31 July 1920): 4Google Scholar.
39. Vahagn [pseud.], S[argis]., “Inch'pēs inkaw Bagun,” in H'ushardzan (1930), 115–21Google Scholar.
40. On the ARF, see ARF Archives Mas D [Part IV] 598–48 Mkrtich [Ghazarosean], Rasht, to Jumshud [Ghazarosean], 17 July 1918; 601–35 Mtrak [Jumshud Ghazarosean], president, and Suren [Khachatur Khachatrean], secretary, ARF Gilan Komitӗ, Anzali, no. 18, to Mkrtich Ghazarosean and Andreas Dawtean, Rasht, 30 May 1918; Vrats'ean, Simon, Hayastani hanrapetut'iwn, 2nd ed. (Beirut: Tparan Mshak, 1958), 158Google Scholar; Suny, Baku Commune, 315–18.
41. Eghikean, Grigor, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': hnch'akeannerӗ ew nrants’ bolshewikneru het mianalu p'ordzerӗ. G. shrjan,” Hairenik’ amsagir 18, no. 3 (207) (January 1940): 107Google Scholar; Chaqueri, “Role and Impact of Armenian Intellectuals,” 35.
42. ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV] 598–19 “Ardzanagrut'iwn“; Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 95. The ARF members of the council were Grigor Eghiazarean, Jumshud Ghazarean, Khachatur Khachatrean and Samuel Ter Hovhannisean. The SDH members were Eghikean, and presumably the two council members politically unidentified in the ARF document, Mkrtichean and Toros Hovnanean. Eghikean notes that an ARF member named Simon was the head of the military council. The ARF archives only mention ARF military bodies without discussing inter-party military cooperation.
43. ARF Archives Mas D [Part IV] 629–8 “Ardzanagrut'iwn H. H'. Dashnakts'ut'ean ‘Pōrt Artur’ Ent'akōmitēi 1917–18,” 19 July 1918 session; ARF Archives Mas D [Part IV] 601–35 Mtrak [Jumshud Ghazarosean], president, and Suren [Khachatur Khachatrean], secretary, ARF Gilan Komitӗ, Anzali, no. 16, to Ŗashid [Rasht] Ent'akōmitē, 28 May [1918].
44. Eghikean had a number of meetings and corresponded with Shahumean, usually on matters concerning Armenians. In addition, in May 1918, Eghikean was sent as part of a Jangali mission to obtain arms and assistance from Shahumean and the Baku Soviet for the Jangalis (Eghikean, Grigor, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits',” Hayrenik’ amsagir 16, no. 10 (190) (August 1938): 105–8Google Scholar; Yeqikian, Grigor [Eghikean, Grigor], “Saranjām-i sarān-i inqilāb-i Rūsīya,” Hur (Tehran, 1324 Sh./1935)Google Scholar, repr. in idem, Shūravī va junbish-i jangal: yāddāshthā-yi yak shāhid-i с;aynī, ed. B. Dihqan (Tehran: Nuvin, 1363 Sh./1984), 415–21; Gilak, Tārīkh-i inqilāb-i jangal, 96.
45. Eghikean, Grigor, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits',” Hayrenik’ amsagir 16, no. 9 (189) (July 1938): 95–97Google Scholar; Yeqikian, Shūravī va junbish-i jangal, 64–67; idem, “Mulāqāt-i Iḥsānullāh Khān Dūstdar bā Sirj Bālāndīn,” Irān-i kunūnī (1326 Sh./1937), repr. in ibid., 383–89; Eghikean, Grigor, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': arewelean zhoghovurtneri azadakrut'ean ach'k'agabut'iwnnerӗ,” Hayrenik’ amsagir 17, no. 2 (194) (December 1938): 154Google Scholar.
46. Eghikean, Grigor, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': tasneweōt’ amis bolshevikneri tirapetut'ean tak,” Hayrenik’ amsagirll, no. 11 (203) (September 1939): 134–36Google Scholar; Yeqikian, Shūravī va junbish-i jangal, 349–58.
47. Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, ], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang (31 July 1920): 2Google Scholar. A skirmish between Bolshevik and Muslim troops led to an armed conflict from 30 March to 2 April 1918 which Armenians joined by 31 March. Most estimates range from 3,000 to 12,000 dead, largely Muslims, with Shahumian's lower figure of 3,000 seeming to be more widely accepted (though there are even exaggerated claims of as many as 30,000 Muslims dead). The end result was Bolshevik control of Baku. See Suny, Baku Commune, 214–26; Swietochowski, Russian Azerbaijan, 112–17; Hovannisian, Armenia on the Road to Independence, 147–49.
48. Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 94—95.
49. ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV], 598–27, 598–28; 598–34 Mtrak [Jumshud Ghazarosean], president, and Suren [Khachatur Khachatrean], secretary, ARF Gilan Kōmitӗ, Anzali, no. 9, 16 May 1918; 598–35 Gilan Komite, Anzali, no. 17, to Shahstan Kedronakan Komite, Tehran, 29 May 1918).
50. The delegation included two SDH and two ARF members (including Eghikean and Eghiazarean) from Anzali, and two non-party member Armenians from Rasht. The non-party members were included so that the delegation would have a popular character.
51. ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV] 598–34, 598–28; Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 95–96; Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, ], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang (31 July 1920): 2Google Scholar. The meeting took place in Sardar Muhammad's home; Hajji Ahmad Kasmaɔi was there with Kuchik Khan and the Jangali representatives in Rasht and Anzali, respectively Mir Mansur and Mirza Abu Talib Amuzgar.
52. Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, Grigor], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang (31 July 1920): 2Google Scholar.
53. ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV] 598–34. There was apparently an attempted attack on Armenians at Barfurush (Babul) around this time by Muslims from Baku which was thwarted by the local governor, who arrested them and sent them back to Baku (F.O. 248/1202, Safarian, “Very Secret. Translation of a Letter from Safarian at Shahrud, dated 27 May 1918, miscellaneous 305/8“).
54. ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV] 598–35, no. 17.
55. Ibid.
56. Gilak, Tārīkh-i inqilāb-i jangal, 82–86. According to a report by an Armenian in the British service, sometime in May 1918 the Muslims in Bandargaz were planning to attack the Armenians but the arrival of fifty Iranian government gendarmes from Astarabad prevented this. A Russian ship also stopped at port and was reassured by the gendarmerie officer that the latter could maintain order there. It is not clear whether this report is another version of the series of events first described above, or an independent incident (F.O. 248/1202, Safarian, misc. 305/8).
57. F.O.248/1203, Maclaren, Rasht, teleg. no. 83, 21 May 1918. On 24 May, 30 Ottoman officers and men were still in the area (Maclaren, Rasht, no. 84, 24 May 1918).
58. ARF Archives, Mas D [Part IV] 598–35 no. 17.
59. According to one version proffered by Eghikean, he asked the interparty council to send other representatives, but it declared that Eghikean would suffice. Upon Eghikean's insistence, the council suggested asking the Rasht local Armenian political party branches. The Rasht Hnchakists stated that Eghikean was sufficient as their representative, but the Rasht ARF declared that it considered the Hnchakists to be a nullity, so that it would send its representatives separately the next day (Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 98–99,). In an earlier article, Eghikean explained that the ARF did not send representatives due to a misunderstanding between its Rasht Subcommittee and the Gilan Committee in Anzali. There is some evidence in the ARF archives of prior tension between the ARF bodies which would support this. In this particular case, the Gilan Committee was not able to send its own representatives for unknown reasons, and therefore requested the Rasht subcommittee to send representatives. Eghikean also wrote that perhaps the other interparty council members preferred not to meet with Kuchik Khan in order to avoid English disapproval and persecution (Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, ], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang [9 September 1920]: 2Google Scholar). According to an ARF source, the Hnchakists independently went ahead to the forest without waiting for two ARF members from Rasht to arrive. The ARF viewed this as intentional. The Gilan Central Committee then instructed the two ARF members to go separately and directly speak with the Ittihad in the name of the ARF for the first time. They were to persuade Kuchik Khan not to ally with the Ottomans and Musavatists and not to oppose the Allies. Tellingly, they were also enjoined to put aside personal grievances (ARF Archives Mas D [Part IV] 601–35 nos. 16, 18). There is no record as to whether this second meeting actually occurred.
60. Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 99; V. Vasakuni [Eghikean], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang (9 September 1920): 2. There is a day or two discrepancy in the dates given in the sources, even between the two versions provided by Eghikean, on these events. This may be due to calendar conversions or errors in recollection. The dates given in the prior paragraph have the advantage of being taken from contemporary correspondence.
61. Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 99–100.
62. Rawlinson, A., Adventures in the Near East, 1918–1922 (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1924), 59Google Scholar. According to British documents Manjil was taken on 12 June, and Bicherakov occupied Rasht on the 14th (F.O. 248/1203, 15 June Circular to Consuls, and 16 June Circular to Consuls). Dunsterville in one work agrees that fighting in Manjil took place on 12 June (Dunsterville, L. C., The Adventures of Dunsterforce [London: Edward Arnold, 1920], 158Google Scholar), but in another declares that the fighting in Manjil took place on 11 June (Dunsterville, L. C., Stalky's Reminiscences [London: Jonathan Cape, 1928], 279Google Scholar).
63. Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, ], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang (17 July 1920): 2Google Scholar.
64. Eghikean, , “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 100–101; Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, ], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang (9 September 1920): 2Google Scholar. Eghikean states that the commander of the Soviet Armenian troops at Khumam, Capt. Suren Melik Allahverdean, was a friend, and there also were Armenians among other Soviet troops.
65. Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, ], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang (9 September 1920): 2Google Scholar.
66. It is unclear exactly how many Armenians were killed. Kuchikpur, Sadiq (Nahżat-i jangal va awzāс;-i farhangī-ijtimāс;ī-yi Gīlān va Qazvīn, ed. Abul-Qasimi, Muhammad Taqi Mir [Rasht: Gilakat, 1369 Sh./1990], 13)Google Scholar names only one victim, Arshak the innkeeper. Frame saw or heard of one shooting victim in front of his own hospital (PHS, RG91, box 1, folder 16, J[ohn]. Davidson Frame, “Resht Medical Report, 1918–1919“). Eghikean in one account mentions the two killed during the attack on Rasht (“Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 101–3), but in another account he notes that three local Armenians were killed and two Russian Armenian officers disappeared and were presumed killed after the English took over Rasht (Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, ], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang [9 September 1920]: 2Google Scholar). It is not clear whether the latter five Armenians were killed during the Jangali attack on Rasht, in which case the figure might include the two mentioned in the first account, or whether these Armenians were killed prior to the attack during the partisan fighting. On the date of the short-lived Jangali occupation see Dunsterville, Adventures of Dunsterforce, 201 and idem, Stalky's Reminiscences, 280; Rawlinson, Adventures in the Near East, 59; British Major Saunders's intelligence summary for this period, cited in Sabahi, Houshang, British Policy in Persia, 1918–1925 (London: Frank Cass, 1990), 39Google Scholar; PHS, Frame.
67. Kuchikpur, Nahżat-i jangal, 13.
68. Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 102–3.
69. ARF Archives Mas D [Part IV] 598–46 Mkrtich [Ghazarosean], Rasht, to Jumshut [Ghazarosean], 15 July 1918; 598–48 Mkrtich [Ghazarosean], Rasht, to Jumshud [Ghazarosean], 17 July 1918.
70. Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, ], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang (9 September 1920): 2Google Scholar; Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 103.
71. Rev. Chas. R. Murray, “An Account of the Jangalee Troubles in Resht,” USNA 891.00/1071 Internal Affairs, Persia 1910–1929, Record Group 59, enclosure to Gordon Paddock, U.S. Consul at Tabriz, no. 140, Qazvin, 30 October 1918 (first used by Chaqueri, Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 127); same, in PHS, RG 91, box 3, folder 13, subseries 9: Miscellaneous/Calendared Correspondence, letter 50.
72. PHS, Frame.
73. Vasakuni, V. [Eghikean, ], “K'och'uk khanӗ ew ir gortsӗ,” Zang (7 December 1919): 2Google Scholar.
74. Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 103–4.
75. According to the local representative of the Iranian government, 5,000–6,000 Armenians had reached Anzali by the beginning of October 1918 (“Ayālat-i Gīlān va Tavālish,” in Keshavarz, Nahżat-i jangal va ittiḥād-i Islām, 113). Piranean mentions some 6,000 Armenian refugees in Anzali (Piranean, Nazaret, Druagner p ‘akhstakan keank'ē [Boston: Dbaran Payk'ari, 1924], 103–15Google Scholar). Barby notes that 10,000 came to Anzali while others were prevented after September 1918 from landing by the British (Henry Barby, Les extravagances bolchéviques et I'épopée arménienne [Paris: Albin Michel, n.d.], 220). Eghikean at one point notes 9,000 refugees in Anzali and a ship with 2,000 sent to Hasan Kiadah (Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 104), but in the same article also cites a figure of 5,000 in Anzali (p. 105). A biographical essay on Eghikean cites a figure of 10,000–12,000 Armenian refugees in Gilan (M. M., “Grigor E. Eghikean,” 192). One official British state source mentions at least 6,000 refugees, probably mostly Armenian, and 8,000 Armenian fighters who came to Gilan by November, and this may be only a partial figure (Frederick James Moberly, comp., Operations in Persia, 1914–1919, orig. 1929, facsimile ed. with introd. by G. M. Bayliss [London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1987], 389). The local British government representative in Anzali cites a figure of thirty thousand refugees ([Aeneas] Ranald MacDonell, … And Nothing Long (London: Constable and Co., 1938), 271. According to an American missionary, initially, some 2,000 Armenians fled to came to Rasht, and another 1,300 Armenians later joined them via Anzali (PHS, Frame). It is probable that some of the discrepancies in these figures are due to the continuing influx and exodus of the Armenians.
76. MacDonell, … And Nothing Long, 271–73. One oil tanker held 600 people on its deck, and after ten days of waiting without provisions only some 300 remained. Women threw suffering children overboard and jumped after them. Those who went insane were thrown out for the safety of the remainder. Piranean describes conditions from his perspective as one of the Anzali refugees (Piranean, pp. 103–19).
77. Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 104–5.
78. “Ayālat-i Gīlān va Tavalish,” in Keshavarz, Nahżat-i jangal va ittiḥād-i Islām, 113.
79. Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 104; Yeqikian, Shūravī va junbish-i jangal, 77.
80. “Ayālat-i Gīlān va Tavālish,” in Kashāvarz, Nahżat-i jangal va ittiḥād-i Islām, 113.
81. Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 106–8. There is what appears to be a typographical error in the text, where the Ottoman troops are stated to have reached Masulah by November. Actually, they reached the region sometime in the week or two after the fall of Baku in September (Moberly, Operations in Persia, 364, 370). On simultaneous Jangali negotiations with the British and the Ottomans, see Moberly, Operations in Persia, 379; F.O. 248/1203, Ian Moir, Resht, to Political Officer, Norperforce, Qazvin, 14 October 1918, enclosed in Ian Moir, Acting Vice Consul, Resht, no. 218, to Percy Cox, Minister Tehran, 15 October 1918; Assistant Political Officer Oakshott, Rasht, to Colonel Kennion, Political Officer Qazvin, 25 October 1918, enclosed in Oakshott, Acting Vice Consul, Rasht, to Percy Cox, Minister Tehran, no. 219, 26 October 1918; Major General W. M. Thomson to Mirza Kuchik Khan, Anzali, 9 November 1918.
82. Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 108–9. The other members were the local Armenian priest, Ter Hovakim Barseghean, who was also a member of the refugees committee, and two Baku Armenians.
83. Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': Mirza K'ōch'uk Khanӗ,” 109.
84. F.O. 248/1203, Pol. Officer Lt. Col. Kennion, Qazvin, no. 154, 22 October 1918, enclosure 2: Major McDonell, Assistant]. Political]. O[officer]., Anzali to Col. Kennion, Qazvin, 18 October 1918; F.O. 248/1203, Maclaren, Rasht, telegram no. 26, 28 January 1918; F.O. 248/1244, [Capt. McWann], Anzali Assistant Political Officer, Anzali, E248, 8 November 1919; F.O. 248/1260, (Pt.III) Pol[itical Officer]., Rasht, telegram PR463, to Pol[itical Officer]. Qazvin, 23 October 1919, enclosed in Capt. L. S. Fortescue, Political]. Officer, Qazvin, 24 October 1919; Chaqueri, Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 169. Saс;id al-Dawlah was the son of Sipahdar-i Aɔzam (Sipahsalar). However, it is unclear whether the Sipahdar mentioned by the English as recruiting Armenians was Sipahdar-i Aczam or Sipahdar-i Rashti. Good relations apparently existed between some Armenian merchants and Gilan's feudal figures. For one example, see Fakhraɔi, Sardār-i jangal, 93–94.
85. Eghikean, Grigor, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits',” Hayrenik’ amsagir 16, no. 10 (190) (August 1938): 98–110Google Scholar.
86. Grigor, Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': tasneweōt’ amis bolshevikneri tirapetut'ean tak,” Hayrenik1 amsagir 17, no. 8 (200) (June 1939): 148–49Google Scholar. The Soviets also got in contact with members of the Armenian Ramkavar Party in Tabriz in early 1920.
87. Eghikean, December 1938, pp. 139–41; Yeqikian, Shūravī va junbish-i jangal, 69–70. On the vigorous propaganda campaign by the Iranian Communist Party, see Chaqueri, Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 220–21.
88. There were three Aghayev brothers, Kamran (1891–1939), Bahram (1883–1965), and Muharram (1883–1935?), involved in Soviet activities in Gilan, of whom the first two were the best known. Kamran Aghayev was a member of the с;Adalat central committee who became a member of the Revolutionary Committee established i n Gilan upon the arrival of Soviet forces in May 1920. Bahram Aghayev, chairman of the с;Adalat central committee in 1919, became a member of Committee of the Revolutionary Council for the Liberation of Iran announced at the beginning of August 1920 as well as a minister in the new government cabinet. Javadzadah, like the Aghayevs, held high-ranking positions in the Iranian Communist Party in Gilan from the beginning, became a member of the Committee of the Revolutionary Council for the Liberation of Iran in August 1920, and held various ministerial posts in the new government formed in August. He became famous later for his role in founding the autonomous government of Azerbaijan at the end of World War II. See Chaqueri, Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran (passim) for a review of primary sources providing conflicting data on the various posts that each of these individuals held during the Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran; I understand that Chaqueri's forthcoming work, Victims of Faith: Iranian Communists and Soviet Russia, will include detailed biographies of the Aghayev brothers.
89. Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': arewelean zhoghovurtneri” 139–41; Yeqikian, Shūravī va junbish-i jangal, 69–70, 109–10. Soviet Admiral F. Raskolnikov complained about the “lack of tact” of Javadzadah and Kamran Aghayev (Aqazadah), as did many others (Chaqueri, Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 411, 419–20).
90. Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': arewelean zhoghovurtneri,” 142; Yeqikian, Shūravī va junbish-i jangal, 110–11, 127; Fakhraɔi, Sardār-i jangal, 305. It is not clear whether a branch of the Turkish political party was actually established, as Eghikean gives contradictory information in the above two accounts. Moreover, there is a problem of chronology. Eghikean declares that the party was called the Halk, or People's Party, but Mustafa Kemal only announced his intent to form this party at the end of 1922 (Erik Jan Ziircher, Political Opposition in the Early Turkish Republic: The Progressive Republican Party 1924–1925 [Leiden, New York, Kobenhavn, Koln: E. J. Brill, 1991], 23). Nonetheless, it is known that Turkish Nationalist leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk tolerated and even worked with Pan-Islamists for the first few years after World War I for pragmatic purposes. There was an Ottoman association based in Istanbul named Ittihad-i Islam which, after World War I, sent Pan-Islamic propaganda to other Muslim countries to both stimulate support for the Ottoman Caliphate and empire as well as to coordinate Muslim independence struggles, and there were similar organizations in Moscow and various other parts of Europe (Landau, Politics of Pan-Islam, 230). There is some evidence in the British archives of what Landau characterizes as a rumor, of a “Pan-Islamic Kemalist Party” composed by Kemalists in Iran in late 1921 (F.O. 371/7803, file 2517/6 Engl. transl. of an intercepted letter of 13 December 1921 in Landau, Politics of Pan-Islam, 179). During the first flight of Soviet forces from Rasht at the end of August 1920, Jemil Bey had surrendered to the Iranian Cossacks, while Niisret had stayed in the city. When the Soviets returned to Rasht, they arrested Nüsret (Yeqikian, Shūravī va junbish-i jangal, 258). Exact figures as to the numbers of soldiers brought to Iran from Baku do not exist. According to various European sources quoted by Chaqueri, in early July there were some 700–800 “Persian Bolsheviks” from Baku in Gilan along with the same number of Kronstadt sailors (Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 231). In early July, hundreds of Bolsheviks were reported to have disembarked in the area, some of whom are characterized as being “Tatar.“
91. Yeqikian, Shūravī va junbish-i jangal, 176–81; Chaqueri, Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 252.
92. Yeqikian, Shūravī va junbish-i jangal, 321–322, 324–325, 338. The regiment was named in honor of the 26 commissars of the Baku Commune. Eghikean states elsewhere that ARF members formed the majority of its members (“Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': tasneweōt'n amis bolshewikneri tirapetut'ean tak,” Hayrenik’ amsagir 18, no. 2 (206) [December 1939]: 122). Chaqueri comments that 700 fanatical Red troops from Astrakhan referred to in American diplomatic despatches in October 1920 probably were the Armenians Eghikean was describing (Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 260).
93. Eghikean, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': tasneweōt’ amis bolshevikneri,” 150.
94. Eghikean, Grigor, “Im h'ishoghut'iwnnerits': tasneweōt’ amis bolshevikneri tirapetut'ean tak,” Hayrenik’ amsagir 17, no. 12 (204) (October 1939): 134–35Google Scholar. See Chaqueri, Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 268–69 on this new alliance of “revolutionary feudals.”
95. From an 18 January 1921 letter of Kuchik Khan to Haydar Khan с;Amu Ughlu from the Russian archives quoted by Chaqueri, Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 439