Reconsider the Shah

Neither as a student of politics nor a follower of any particular ideology am I qualified to discuss Reverend Kimball's remarks on Iran's present situation (see The Crimson, Jan. 9). But as an Iranian Moslem student currently at the same institution and a member of the Center for the Study of World Religion as is Rev. Kimball, I would like to raise a few questions about his article.

First, on what does he base the "facts" he has uncovered? Had he personally experienced life in Iran during the past regime so as to judge the truth of statements made about that time? Does he have adequate familiartity with Iran's history and traditions? If so he could have reassured his parents of Iran's 3000 years of civilization, hospitality and respect for humanity. Iranians have always rejected brutality except in a few exceptional circumstances. He did not have to look upon his trip into Iran's as a venture into a jungle of savage beasts.

Reverend Kimball talks of his impression of the intensity of the Iranian people's hatred for the deposed Shah. Did he meet any of the thousands and thousands of intellectuals and ordinary Iranians who are confined to their homes and dare not open their mouths, and who are praying for the right time to come? Did he have the opportunity to meet and know the traditional bazaris (the businessmen in the town marketplaces)? How does he evaluate the intensity of this hatred then? Was his visit an organized tour where he saw only what the authorities wanted him to see?

Had he ever been in Iran during the past regime, particularly in its later years, he would have seen how even in the remotest villages, the single tiny shop carried all the basic medicines--at unbelievably low prices, the government paid two-thirds of the price. He would have seen the government hospitals and clinics found in every small town. He would have seen that in late 1978 the price of bread, tea, sugar, and other basic necessities was the same as 15 years before, because the government picked up three-fourths of the tab.

Is he aware that 99 per cent of the 60,000 Iranian students in the U.S. are the children of plumbers, mechanics, taxi drivers, masons, gardeners? They are not here on scholarship but on their fathers' income. If it is true that the Shah had squeezed the wealth out of the Iranian people for the last 37 years, how could these lower class people be so prosperous as to afford to send their children to study abroad, even visiting them every now and then and returning home with products from U.S. department stores? Does Rev. Kimball know that every Iranian student, no matter what academic stage, received $200 per month from the Shah's government and health insurance up to $50,000?

Reverend Kimball mentions the "oppression and brutality (that) existed under the Shah." Did he ever meet the general (leaving out names) who had gone so far as to organize a coup d'etat against the Shah, and, after being caught, was only exiled to France for a year? After this time he returned to Teheran and never stopped his bitter criticism of the Shah, holding meetings every week at his home or the home of his co-ideologist. Strangely enough, he had to leave for Paris after the Revolution. Did Rev. Kimball meet the most revered and loved Iranian lawyer who was staying in the U.S. for the past 15 years directing the anti-Shah movement, who went to Iran immediately after the Revolution but had to leave for Paris soon after that. Does Rev. Kimball remember that even the Ayatollah Khomeini, number one enemy of the Shah, was only exiled in the holy city of Najaf.

I do not disagree that many of the SAVAK agents have been justly punished by Khomeini or that some members of the past regime were corrupt. But for Rev. Kimball to say "almost everyone had a brother or father who had been taken away or could pull up his pants leg and show burn marks and say "Look what SAVAK did to me'," is a very one-sided, general and unsupported remark for a man who was only in Iran 11 days. There are 35 million Iranians. How many did he meet? What Rev. Kimball saw was only what he was scheduled to see.

He also says, "SAVAK would sometimes dismember children of suspected political dissenters to gain confessions. They held some of the children aloft and proudly exhibited their own scars and stumps." This is an outrageous statement. Did he ever witness this extraordinary process? Even though he may have been exposed to certain scars and stumps on certain children, these could be the results of other unrelated incidents.

What Rev. Kimball did not discover on his trip was:

--Not only does President Carter not deserve to be criticized for his remark to the Shah that "Iran is a stable island in the middle of a sea of turmoil," but he has been proven right. It is hardly a year since the Shah's departure and the whole area has gone upside down.

--Islam has been chosen merely as the best garb for mean political revenge.

--It is good to move with the times but it is much better to preserve integrity.

Nezhat Safa is a visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of World Religion