During the First Settlement Period 1934 – 1941

This period of history is considered by the majority of the nomadic population as one of the most difficult ever experienced by the tribal people of Iran. The forced settlement left an everlasting scar on these people, for it brought the nomadic tribes to the brink of annihilation. The Turkish nomads refer to these years as “ghara illar” (the dark years).
The tales of exile and the crimes of Amir Ahmadi, the officer in charge of settlement of the tribes in Lurestan, lives on among the Lurs. The stories of repression and rebellion pass on from one generation to the next among the Bakhtiaries, Kurds, and others. Literature, songs, and poetry left from that period portray fear, dissatisfaction, and resentment. A popular song of the Qashqa’is is “Shah Olar Doran Donnar,” This song states their hope, and means the Shah will die and the universe will be a better place to live.

In the past, prior to 1934-41, the forces that controlled nomadic tribes in Iran basically had been both natural and man-made: the power of the land owners, khans, natural and climatic conditions, human and animal epidemics, their own political hierarchy, market relations between them and their surrounding communities, and wars and conflicts; there was relatively little political control by the government. Nothing challenged their existence so
severely as the events of 1934-41. Nothing had such far reaching effects on all aspects of tribal life as did the forced settlement. The feeling of powerlessness was unparalleled in tribal history. Market relations fell off as productivity declined. Epidemics and disease became widespread due to the decrease in food and water. Social relations shaped by economic activities in these societies, came under much strain.

Land, being the major element in the nomadic  production process, became inaccessible when migration was forceably blocked. Lives were lost from starvation. Economic losses from wholesale destruction of herds and flocks influenced all relations ruling these communities. Productive work was greatly reduced and the work force itself became idle. Men could no longer hunt, and shepherding was limited. Their role in relationship to migration
was eliminated. Women’s work roles were greatly changed and modified due to the reduction in the size of the herds.

Children’s services were not as essential as during prior times. This desperate situation forced some tribal people into agriculture. They began to farm in order to survive and to comply with the wishes of the government. They reluctantly acceded to a plan that in their view was designed to bring about their very destruction.
Psychologically, the nomads began to feel animosity toward whatever represents the alternative proposed for them by the government. The manifestations of settlement plans which have been negative are the basis for a rejectionist psychological attitude. The nomads look at official policies with doubt and distrust.

During the Second Settlement Period 1941 – 1962

The devastating effect of the first settlement period manifested itself in a clearly destructive manner in the years following the abdication of Reza Shah. It is interesting to note that the settlement attempt not only convinced those who were forcefully settled but also a number of those who had settled previously that settled life is evil. Realizing the misery caused by it for the relatives and clan members, even those who had settled voluntarily rose in revolt, burned down the government built living quarters, destroyed some of their own gardens and crops, and even pillaged and razed a number of villages. Such actions, overtly political or not, demonstrated their will to regain the control of their own socioeconomic destiny.

In the settlements, the tribal people’s activity had become something other than a product of their own will and desire. An inhuman power ruled over every aspect of their life. Simply, they had become alienated. The revolt was to liberate themselves from these conditions. Not that the revolt of the early 1940’s brought ultimate freedom from inhuman conditions, but for a period of time conditions improved. The tribal people came to exercise a greater degree of control over their own lives.

After the abdication of Reza Shah, the nomads freed themselves from the conditions of the forced settlement program, but they were greatly exploited in the process.
In order to be able to continue migrating, many of them had to turn to local merchants and became prey to financial scalpers in order to build up their herds. They were forced to borrow and pay high interest rates for years to come. Some tribal people migrated to towns for jobs while others went to the Persian Gulf states to work in the oil fields. Thousands of Qashqa’is, Bakhtiaris, and Buyr Ahmadis went to work in the oil fields of Iran in the state of Khuzestan.

Settlement had a diversifying impact on those who settled. For those who were settled out of economic despair the experience was humiliating, for the transition was in no way voluntary. The role change that took place among this group was very significant. The work force had to engage in basically non-herding economic professions.

Women and children as a work force became idle; their experiences were similar to those in the time of forced settlement. The forced inactivity resulted in economic impoverishment and other impacts on the social fabric of those families. Under the new conditions, men carried out most of the tasks. Agricultural activities were considered masculine by nomadic standards, although this concept was not shared by the peasant population. Village women normally worked alongside men, carrying out agricultural tasks. But this was not true of the women of the landless nomads who settled in the villages. Women of the settled nomads did not play a role similar to that of the village women, nor did the young children of the settled nomads play a role similar to that of the young children of the village.

In much of the period under study, there was a certain degree of harmony between the settled nomadic ethnic people and the Persian majority in such regions as Fars and Esfahan where nomads are non-Persian ethnic minorities. In this period nomads mostly settled into Persian communities as a minority. There were cases where nomads formed their exclusively ethnic villages, but this was not a prevailing pattern and practice. In some areas where the ethnic balance was threatened by large scale settlement in Persian communities the degree of conflict was greater. One example is the small town of Firuzabad, which was heavily settled by Qashqa’is. In Firuzabad at times there have been small clashes between Persians and non-Persian Qashqa’is over sociopolitical or economic issues.

Firuzabad is a major trading town for Qashqa’i people and for many centuries has been under the political sphere of influence of this tribe. Qashqa’i political leadership from the early part of this century has turned this town into a political capital. Since the time of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution in 1907, Qashqa’i khans or pro-government Qashqa’i elements have often represented this congressional district in the Iranian Parliament.
There is no statistic of all Qashqa’is in the region, but until recently they have been a minority in the town. The non-Qashqai population have not always favored this trend.

The majority of the land and the villages in the Firuzabadi region prior to the land reform program belonged to Qashqa’i khans, and when a large number of Qashqa’is began settling in Firuzabad from the mid-1940’s, the Persian community of the town feared losing their trading positions to the newcomers. The influx of Qashqa’is into Firuzabad has to a small degree influenced the economic status of the Persian shopkeepers. A number of Qashqa’i tribal people have become shopkeepers themselves, taking away some business from the traditional traders, but the significance of these enterprises has been small. Qashqa’is settling in this area mostly are economically impoverished, and therefore pose little real threat to the business sector.

In comparing the impoverished settled nomads and the wealthy individuals who settled, one finds that the number of the second group is very small. The wealthy tended to maintain a household on the land they owned and in many instances, another one in a town or a city in the region, using the home in the urban area for educational purposes for their children. These people most often spent their summers in their village or rural home. The destitute nomads who had permanently settled maintained just one location— where they are employed.

During this period, only a small number of various tribes settled, in a scattered manner. Mostly, they settled among the Persian speaking population of villages and cities as a small minority of unskilled workers. They settled into communities with different sociopolitical forms. With few exceptions, where groups created their own settlements, they preserved much of the ancient culture, but where they integrated into villages and cities, many put behind the traditions of the past.

The great majority of those who left nomadic ways either became farm laborers or farmers. Migration to cities was very slow during this period.

 

During the Third Settlement Period 1962 – 1979

In the third period, government policies again caused impoverishment for many. A very high number settled in this period out of economic stagnation. Unavailability of fertile lands and funds led an unusually high number to settle in shanty towns. The land reform laws brought severe restrictions on the use of pastures. Many tribes lost their traditional grazing lands and were therefore unable to continue herding. People lost their herds and their wealth, and this forced settlement. The severe drought of the early 1960’s was also a contributing factor toward settlement. Several rainless years not only destroyed the pastures but also crops and herds. The effect of this natural phenomenon was particularly hard on the tribal
people of southern Iran.
In the mid-1970’s animal husbandry and many other types of agricultural activities were becoming less and less profitable because basic foodstuffs were heavily subsidized by the government. These factors led to the further impoverishment of nomads. Livelihood from animal husbandry and subsistence grain farming became less advantageous.
For many people the only alternative left was to settle in the cities. The land reform program rendered many peasants and nomads effectively landless. Abrahamian (1980:23) wrote:

For every two families that receive land one received nothing, and for every one that obtained adequate land (7 hectares) three obtained less than enough to become independent commercial farmers.

Abrahamian added that after the land reform farm cooperatives were starved of credit, and agricultural production stagnated mainly because of
price controls on basic commodities.

When the land reform was carried out, Peyman (1967) wrote that the state of the nomads was left in limbo.

Land reform also created a certain amount of apprehension and uneasiness among the traditional Persian peasant population toward nomads. Fearing that the settlement of nomads might grant them right to claim lands, the peasants prevented many people wanting to settle in their territory from doing so. Since most of the fertile lands with water were cultivated by traditional peasants and nomads previously sedentarized, many of the newer people were forced to settle on poor land in areas of their winter camps where there was little or no water.

During this third period, a time of massive settlement, sociopolitical relations within the tribes also faced great alteration. Urbanized nomads seem to have lost their political structure and organization. However, traditional leaders on exceptional occasions have become rallying points.

For example, at the time of the Iranian Revolution in February of 1979, certain tribal leaders were able to organize the settled nomads of Shiraz for protest marches and political activity in support of the Revolution. Of course, there were attempts by the educated and the progressive elements to build political organizations and to form new unity among those who have recently migrated to urban areas.

Since the 1960’s, many new settled communities have been built in rural areas also. In these new villages where most of the people are from similar tribal backgrounds, the traditional sociopolitical ties continue to exist. But gradually, because of the partial transformation to a new form of production, the old relations are losing their strength. Only low level officials from the traditional leaders settled in villages. Economically they are mostly in the same position as those who have settled with them. They enjoy a certain respect and often serve as intermediaries between their people and formal officials of the central government, but economically they differ little.

 

Rural to Urban Migration

One of the chief characteristics of the third period was the move to the cities. One factor was the planned transformation of Iran into a semi-industrial
nation. This required laborers. Availability of jobs in towns and urban areas served as a pull factor for nomads.

Other factors such as high population growth, unemployment and underemployment, and unavailability of good agricultural land in rural areas served as a push factor. One factor which served as an attraction to young male nomads to the cities was the tribal education program.

The rudimentary education obtained from this program prepared the young males for unskilled labor, enhancing their capabilities for competing for the unskilled jobs with others who had no education.

Shanty towns and slums in the cities began growing as a result of rural and nomadic population migration. To point out the significance and the degree of the migrations* Abrahamian (1980:25) stated:

The number of migrants which had totaled 3 million between 1956 and 1971, jumped to over 380,000 annually after 1971.

Referring to the shanty towns and slums, Abrahamian (1980:25) wrote:

Since many of the migrants were young, unmarried, and unskilled, and since the cities lacked housing and social services, the new shanty towns produced predictable problems: crimes, alcoholism, prostitution, delinquency, and rising suicide rates.

The migration of nomads to towns gained momentum in the mid-1960’s. The settlement in rural areas in rather massive numbers began about 1962. Statistics presented in Ille Qashqa’i for the years 1962-1963 show, for example, that in these two years, from the Darrehshuri branch of the Qashqa’i tribe, 700 families settled in their summer campground. This was almost 10 percent of the total tribal population. The number of those settled in winter camps and cities was not as large. It is in the last fifteen years that cities and towns have attracted tens of thousands of nomads. To cite an example: in the city of Shiraz, not including Turkish people who settled in Shiraz prior to 1900, the number of nomads has grown from several hundred in 1965 to twenty-five thousand in 1979.