The Iranian Community of the Late Ottoman Empire and the Egyptian “Crisis” through the Persian Looking Glass: The Documentation of the ʿUrabi Revolt in Istanbul’s Akhtar

Abstract

This article focuses on the coverage of the ʿUrabi rebellion of 1881–82 in the Istanbul-based Persian-language newspaper Akhtar. Akhtar was the first periodical to be published in Persian outside the auspices of the Qajar state, and first appeared on 13 January 1876, from the press owned by Mohammad Tāher Tabrizi in the Valide Han in the Ottoman capital. The objective of the present article is twofold. First, it aims to interweave the history of the Persian-language publication Akhtar with broader questions of how the Hamidian state strove to situate itself within a changing international order in a bid to affirm its legitimacy and sovereignty. It then proceeds to examine the ideological leanings of Akhtar set against the complex background of censorship laws implemented by the Hamidian state (1876–1908). To this end, by scrutinizing the reportage of this one specific event—the Egyptian crisis of 1881–82—it attempts to shed light on how the editors of Akhtar successfully maintained the delicate equilibrium of appeasing both its patrons: namely, the Hamidian state and its readership across the region where Persian was spoken. Thus, the article seeks also to highlight the ways in which inter-imperial dynamics lie at the heart of the history of this “Persian” publication.

Notes

1 See Pistor-Hatam, Akhtar as a Transmitter of Ottoman Political Ideas; Pistor-Hatam, “Progress and Civilization”; Haag-Higuchi, A Topos and its Dissolution: Japan in Some Twentieth Iranian Texts; Suzuki, A Note; Koloğlu, Un Journal Persan d’Istanbul: Akhtar; Zarinebaf-Shahr, “From Istanbul to Tabriz”; Lawrence, Akhtar.

2 For an essay on the treatment of Ottoman history as a record that pertains to the Turkish nation-state, and views other ethnic and religious groups living in the Empire as foreign elements which were at best marginal in an otherwise Turkish order, see Eldem, “Osmanlı Tarihini Türklerden Kurtarmak”.

3 Pistor-Hatam, Akhtar as a Transmitter of Ottoman Political Ideas, 142.

4 Sāsāni, Yādbudhā, 205–6.

5 The other editors of Akhtar were Hajj Mirzā Mahdi and Mirzā Mahdi (later called Zaʿim al-Dowleh). Hajj Mirzā Mahdi was the son of a merchant from Tabriz and did most of the writing for the newspaper, whereas Mirzā Mahdi Zaʿim al-Dowleh had studied medicine in Tabriz and then traveled to Istanbul to continue his studies there, and after fourteen years of collaboration in the publication of Akhtar from 1876 to 1890, he moved to Cairo in 1891 and began to publish Hekmat (1892–1911). The three men's common social background and their urban ethos had a significant impact on the tone and content of the newspaper, which was particularly popular amongst merchants, especially from Azerbaijan. Among other well-known contributors of the newspaper were Sheikh Ahmad Ruhi, Mirzā Āqā Khan Kermani and Mirzā Habib Isfahani. Some of these men were also connected to one another through the Iranian School in Istanbul, the Dabestān-e Irāniyān: Mirzā Mahdi Tabrizi, the editor of Akhtar, Mirzā Āqā Khan Kermani and Mirzā Habib Isfahani had all taught at this school at different times for extra income. See Gurney, “Mirzā Āqā Khan”, 141; Lawrence, Akhtar, 33–6.

6 BOA/Prime Ministerial Archives. MF.MKT. 26/123. 17 safar 1292 (March 25, 1875).

7 Extract from letter by Mohsen Khan Moʿin al-Molk to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated 27 muharram 1294 (February 12, 1877), as quoted from Sasani, Yādbudhā, 206.

8 Farman-Farmayan, The Forces of Modernization in Nineteenth Century Iran, 146–7. Despite frequent bans and its ultimate prohibition from entering Iran after the Tobacco Régie in 1891–92, the newspaper's issues were circulated in Iran by one means or another.

9 Salname-yi Nezaret-i Maarif-i Umumiye, Asır Matbaası, 1321/1903. The abandonment of the Ottoman Press Law in 1878 allowed the government to suspend papers without stating cause or reason. Newspapers published in Arabic and Persian were also closely observed.

10 For example, when “unlawful” publications were discovered in the offices of Akhtar in May 1890, the Ministry of Education decreed that these works should be “confiscated without further investigation”. Elsewhere, when it was established in February 1891 that Mohammad Tāher Tabrizi continued to keep such works and publish unauthorized material, the constabulary was told to “fine in moderation”. See BOA. MF.MKT 116/107, 3 shavvāl 1307 (May 23, 1890); BOA.ZB. 17/93, 2 rajab 1308 (February 12, 1891).

11 The present article builds on previous work by the author on the treatment of the ʿUrabi crisis in Akhtar. See, Lawrence, Akhtar, 67–96.

12 The Ministry of Education's Inspection and Supervision Committee (Encümen-i Teftiş ve Muayene) was established in 1882 in order to formalize the means and mechanisms by which the state controlled and censored all published materials in the Ottoman Empire. These acts of censorship had previously been overseen by the Translation and Records Office (Telif ve Tercüme Dairesi).

13 Lawrence, Akhtar, 67.

14 Genell, “Empire by Law”, 2.

15 Lawrence, Akhtar, 67–8.

16 For an examination of Iran's encounters with imperial powers in the nineteenth century see, Kazemzadeh, Russia and Britain in Persia; Curzon, Persia and the Persian Question; Atkin, Russia and Iran; Guity, From Bazaar to Market: Foreign Trade and Economic Development in Nineteenth-Century; Martin, The Qajar Pact.

17 Historians have, for the most part, considered occupied Egypt a British colony in all but name, and have treated the events of 1881–82 as having been a straightforward matter of protecting British control over the Suez Canal and the interests of European bond-holders with investments in Egypt. See Robinson and Gallagher, The Climax of Imperialism, 76–121; Mansfield, The British in Egypt; Hopkins, “The Victorians and Africa”.

18 Genell, “Empire by Law”, 2.

19 Egyptian scholars such as Latifah Salim and ʿAbdul-ʿAzim Ramadan consider the ʿUrabi uprising to be a nationwide and mass rebellion on the part of intellectuals, urban guilds, both small and large landowners and have sought to understand the movement in the context of class conflict and socio-economic factors influencing political affairs. Juan Cole has built on such works but has opted for what he calls a “social explanation”, examining the manner in which “economic and demographic change and the growth of state power created new interests among the strata that most participated later in the Revolution: the rural population, the local guilds and the intelligentsia”. See Salim, Social Forces in the ʿUrabi Revolution; Ramadan, Social Significance of the Urabi Revolution; Cole, Colonialism and Revolution.

20 For notable exceptions, see Genell, “Empire by Law”; Adalı, “Documents Pertaining to the Egyptian”Question; Deringil, “The Ottoman Response to the Egyptian Crisis”; Kızıltoprak, Mısır’da İngiliz İşgali.

21 Lawrence, Akhtar.

22 Genell, “Empire by Law”, 3.

23 BOA. Y.EE. 39/2012 (undated).

24 Aydın, Globalizing the Intellectual History, 164.

25 Minawi, The Ottoman Scramble for Africa, 3.

26 Genell, “Empire by Law”, 1–6.

27 Shaw, “Integrity and Integration”, 40.

28 A number of the quotes from Akhtar used in this chapter as they relate to the Egyptian crisis have been borrowed from Lawrence, Akhtar.

29 “Mesr”, Akhtar, September 7, 1881 (13 shavvāl 1298).

30 Akhtar, August 18, 1881 (21 ramazān 1298). There is no indication what the petition read or demanded.

31 “Mesr”, Akhtar, September 7, 1881 (13 shavvāl 1298).

32 BOA. Y.EE. 39/2465/121/122.

33 Tercüman-ı Hakikat (1878–1921) was an Ottoman newspaper published by Ahmet Midhat Efendi in Istanbul and is considered one of the most important publications of the Hamidian period, particularly for its literary content.

34 Tercüman-ı Hakikat, February 19, 1883.

35 Akhtar, July 18, 1882 (2 ramazān 1299).

36 Lawrence, Akhtar, 73.

37 “Mesr”, Akhtar, September 7, 1881 (13 shavvāl 1298).

38 Ibid.

39 Raif and Ahmed, “Bab-ı Ali Hariciye Nezareti Mısır Meselesi”, 71-71.

40 “Mesr”, Akhtar, September 7, 1881 (13 shavvāl 1298).

41 Deringil, “The Ottoman Response to the Egyptian Crisis”, 7.

42 BOA. Y.A.HUS. 170/107; BOA. Y.EE. 122/5. The conference first met on June 3, 1882, but the Ottoman delegation did not attend until July 26, 1882, following the bombardment of Alexandria.

43 Tercüman-ı Hakikat, June 25, 1882 (8 shaʿbān 1299).

44 Lawrence, Akhtar, 74.

45 See Galbraith and Lutfi al-Sayyid-Marsot, “The British Occupation of Egypt”.

46 Lutfi al-Sayyid-Marsot, Egypt and Cromer, 5.

47 Galbraith and Lutfi al-Sayyid-Marsot, “The British Occupation of Egypt”, 474–5.

48 Lawrence, Akhtar, 75–6.

49 “Ettehād-e Islām”, Akhtar, September 13, 1881 (20 shavvāl 1298).

50 Following the 1877–78 Turko-Russia war, the Ottoman Empire lost most of its non-Muslim population in the Balkans. This is considered a turning point in how the empire crafted its domestic and foreign policy: Henceforth, Sultan Abdülhamid chose to increasingly emphasize his position as caliph, and promoted his Arab subjects to more important positions in state bureaucracy. See Deringil, “Legitimacy Structures in the Ottoman State”; Duguid, “The Politics of Unity”; Aydın, Globalizing the Intellectual.

51 “Ettehād-e Islām”, Akhtar, September 13, 1881 (20 shavvāl 1298).

52 Ibid.

53 Lawrence, Akhtar, 79–80.

54 Kazemzadeh, Russia and Britain in Persia, 72–83. The government of India was especially anxious for a settlement of the Russo-Persian issue as it wished to secure Afghanistan from Russian interference. The India Office was so involved with the “Persian frontier question” that Lord Hartington, the secretary of state for India, sat in conversations between British Foreign Secretary, Granville and the Russian ambassador to London, Lobanov, in 1882.

55 Lawrence, Akhtar, 80.

56 Letter from Malkum Khan to Nasir al-Din Shah, dated 21 rajab 1297 (June 29, 1880), as quoted from Safāʾi, Asnād-e Now Yāfteh, 119. Malkum Khan would become one of Nasir al-Din's most fervent critics and advocate pan-Islamism through the London based Persian-language newspaper Qanun, which called for a united Islamic front under the leadership of the Ottoman sultan as a means of challenging the power and undermining the legitimacy of the Qajar shah's government. See Algar, Mirza Malkum Khan.

57 Safāʾi, Barghā-ye Tārikh, 114–15.

58 Aydın, Globalizing the Intellectual, 166–7.

59 “Hengāmeh-ye Mesr va Motālaʿāt”, Akhtar, July 25, 1882 (9 ramazān 1299).

60 Ibid.

61 Cole, Colonialism and Revolution, 237.

62 Lawrence, Akhtar, 85.

63 Deringil, “The Ottoman Response to the Egyptian Crisis”, 9.

64 Akhtar, June 14, 1882 (27 rajab 1299).

65 Akhtar, June 25, 1882 (3 shaʿbān 1299).

66 Ibid.

67 BOA. Y.PRK.AZJ. 4/05.

68 Cole, Colonialism and Revolution, 238.

69 Deringil, “The Ottoman Response to the Egyptian Crisis”, 7–8.

70 Malet to Granville, September 21, 1881, as quoted in ibid., 5.

71 Akhtar, June 14, 1882 (27 rajab 1299).

72 Ibid.

73 “Hengāmeh-ye Mesr va Motālaʿāt”, Akhtar, July 25, 1882 (9 ramazān 1299).

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid.

76 “Hengāmeh-ye Mesr va Motālaʿāt”, Akhtar, July 22, 1882 (9 ramazān 1299).

77 Ibid.

78 Lawrence, Akhtar, 94.

79 “Hengāmeh-ye Mesr va Motālaʿāt”, Akhtar, July 25, 1882 (9 ramazān 1299); Lawrence, Akhtar, 94–5.

80 Cole, Colonialism and Revolution, 281.

81 Lawrence, Akhtar, 94.

82 Akhtar, June 14, 1882 (27 rajab 1299).

83 Ibid.

84 “Ettehād-e Islām”, Akhtar, September 13, 1881 (20 shavvāl 1298).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Tanya Elal Lawrence

Tanya Elal Lawrence is a PhD candidate in History at Yale University and a Visiting Researcher at the Skilliter Centre for Ottoman Studies at Newnham College, Cambridge. The author thanks the Iranian Studies editors and the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback on the article, and is grateful to John Gurney for his comments on an earlier draft. A particular note of thanks is due to Chris Wilson.