خارجي ٤١/٥٠٠١ "بلاد فارس - الشؤون الداخلية (إرساليات متنوعة)". [ظ‎‎١‎١‎١] (٢٤٨/٢٢٢)

2
* ^
, A
U
.1' ■
* \\
A
personal interest in every detail of the work of the police, and it is inconceivable
that Mukhtari would have dared to do the smallest thing-without making a full
report to Reza Shah, who was so far above any kind of criticism or control that
if Mukhtari had ventured to ask his Royal master to put anything, in writing
the most probable result would have been a severe kick from the Royal boot. \or
is it convenient for the public to remember that, if Mukhtari was guilty of slavish
obedience to the Shah, his guilt in that respect was shared by a very large numbe/^
of other Government servants who vied with one another in expressing the mo?
fulsome praise for whatever the Shah did.
* 5. The trial began on the 25th July. The court was the tribunal created for
the hearing of charges against Government servants, and Mukhtari’s numerous
'enemies were not long in discovering that that court was not empowered to award
a capital sentence. There was a considerable outcry on this point; a Bill was
introduced in the Majlis on the 4th August for the purpose of ensuring that in
future all persons accused of complicity in the crime of murder should be tried
before the criminal courts which could award a death sentence; but it was soon
realised that to pass this Bill would take too long for it to affect the present trial.
6. The first day of the trial was the occasion of long and highly coloured
articles in all the Tehran papers, full of phrases such as the following:
“ Mukhtari, the agent of Reza Shah, foremost in working the machinery of
tyranny, and a shedder of blood comparable to Jenghiz Khan or Tamuriane,
appeared trembling at the seat of justice There was Mukhtari, who used
to be able to ruin a hundred families with one stroke of his pen, now trembling
before the inexorable retribution which justice is about to exact.”
7. I do not think it necessary to weary you with a detailed analysis of the
lengthy arguments and cross-examinations which took place during the trial.
They were all reported in full in many of the Tehran papers. The depositions
of the accused were confused and contradictory, and were for the most part denied
by the accused when cross-examined by the court. The case of the murder of
Khazal ought perhaps to be mentioned here : the prosecution’s argument was
that the sheikh was strangled by three or four people at the orders of Mukhtari
and with the connivance of one of the sheikh’s sons, and that after the strangling
had taken place one of the murderers pierced his forehead with a knife to make
some blood flow. Mukhtari’s defence was that the sheikh died a natural death,
as was certified by a Tehran doctor at the time. It seems peculiarly pointless
for the aged sheikh to have been murdered at all, for he was a bedridden old
man, very ill with diabetes and incapable of doing any harm; in fact, it was
common knowledge that he was dying in any case.
8. Mukhtari’s defence was a denial of all the charges, particularly the
eharge that he had kept persons in prison after their term had expired : he had
invariably sent reports to the judicial authorities (and no doubt also to the Shah):
not one of the Ministers of Justice had ever made any comments or raised any
questions concerning anything he had done. He had merely executed the orders
he received.
9. One of the Majlis Deputies, named Siqat-ul-Islami, spoke in the Majlis
on the 4th August to the following effect: Everyone who had participated in the
Government and the administration of the last regime ought to be put on trial;
if Mukhtari was evil, so was the whole former Government; all the Ministers
and responsible officials of those days ought to be brought to trial as Mukhtari’s
accomplices. And one of the defending advocates, named Dr. Muhit, caused
bitter criticism from many of those who are thirsting for revenge by his statement
that in the days of Reza Shah there was no real law and no real Executive except
in the person of the Shah himself.
10. A good deal of popular feeling is being whipped up by various
interested parties for their own ends. Printed slips of paper bearing the
following statements, in Persian, have reached this legation : “ Mukhtari has
made children fatherless, wives husbandless,” &c., “ Hundreds of innocent women
have expired under the kicks of Mukhtari’s jack-boots; to-day the judges of the
criminal court must avenge them.” As usual, the British are, obscurely,
sometimes supposed to be mixed up in the trial. For reasons which are not
obvious this legation is accused of shielding and protecting Mukhtari.
Anonymous letters have been written to this legation warning us that if we
protect Mukhtari not only will the “ hate of the Persians increase against the
British, but it might lead to other things which might not have a good
effect ” .
11. It seems inevitable that Mukhtari will be sentenced to a long term of
imprisonment. One thing appears to be in Mukhtari’s favour, though it is not