Ganj - e - Gharoon(Korah’s treasure)

What was the iconoclastic message of President Rouhani on fighting the capital and capitalism? The president explored the controversial subject in a recent conference among the officials of the Judiciary, but they were not the only audience of the President. He spoke of this long-standing issue for all Iranians. Mohammad Nahavandian, the President's chief of staff elaborated on Rouhani's words in an interview as follows.



President Rouhani has put emphasis on treating capital and capitalism well and fairly. He said that 'some still disregard capitalism' in a conference among the officials of the Judiciary. As long as there are those who see capitalism unclean and sinful and find poverty honorable, we will not see better days to come. Why does the President put so much emphasis on this specific subject?
The truth is, capital and capitalism do not possess reliable status in the country's economy and politics. It's not to say that our society has always approached capitalists cautiously and dubiously. I believe that the present Iranian society is long past that point, unless certain capitalists enjoy unfair economic privileges, such as monopoly or secret information. Should this perilous point of view prevail, the public will most certainly find capitalists and capitalism in opposition to their benefits. Many investments in the country have long been funded by government loans and that's why the general stance of the public towards capitalists is negative. But we need to discuss this fundamental question that whether Islam disapproves investment and capitalism. I can confidently claim that there is no such thing in our school of thought. Hazrat Ali, as one of the greatest human-beings in the history was a man of honor and morality, but he never opted to live in poverty. On the contrary, Hazrat Ali was a very rich and productive figure who decidedly chose to bestow his wealth to the less fortunate. This is very much different from one who seeks charity without a need for it. Seeking charity has never been encouraged in Islam. Charity and goodwill is deemed valuable, but seeking charity is against our values. In the past few years, the Iranian society has been increasingly subject to false interpretations of wealth and poverty, definitely in opposition to the tradition of the greatest Islamic figures in the history. One of the notorious viewpoints prevailing in the recent years has been the two-fold approach towards the positive act of charity. One who practices charity does an invaluable work, but what about the receiver of charity? According to Islam, one who accepts charity must try to improve their situation as soon as possible. Artists, film-makers and decision-makers have paid little attention to this subject in recent years. For example, the term 'the oppressed', though negative in nature, has been regarded with respect in our society over the past decade, while Islam clearly disapproves of it. The rich are bound to help the oppressed, but it's never been advised to purposefully turn to poverty and it's a must to escape it. Spreading the term 'the oppressed' and observing that with respect will most certainly cost our culture and economy too much.
Besides false religious interpretations, cultural incumbents and diplomats have also played a huge role in this regard. Over the past few decades, cultural incumbents of the country have been severely in opposition to economics and free economy on numerous occasions, because they believe that economists are influenced by socialism.
In order to answer this question, we need to first have a look at the history of free economy system in the country. I believe that the public assumption of free economy is different from what is said in books and encyclopedias. In fact, the concept of free economy is intertwined with public culture and the general interpretation of society and not necessarily in line with scientific definitions. If people think of free economy as privilege for a certain minority, we cannot expect the public to discuss heated economic subjects such as this. In several periods in the past, minorities enjoyed economic advantages and the public stood against the minorities in a justice-seeking act. People fought against monopoly; a notion also discredited in free economy. But the problem is that our people never experienced a free economic system without monopoly. For instance, unequal distribution of income in Pahlavi period and especially during the rise of oil revenues led to anti-prejudice movements in the society. It's not to say that some leftists and socialists took advantage of these movements to their own interest. Thus, fighting prejudice and socialism turned into one of the inevitable interpretations of free economy in the society. Under the severe economic condition during the Imposed War, we had to turn to centralization; an approach which inevitably allocated more power to the government. For instance, the distribution of coupon was once a necessity and well-justified due to the critical economic situation of the country. Later on, decisions for removing coupons were met with warm reception of the society, because people found that to their benefit. But we need to remember free economy can hardly be achieved without justice. Therefore, it's best to maintain economic justice in every move and decision in order to deliver free economy to the masses. In other words, considering the grand history of Iranian civilization and the fact that oil revenues are a major source of the country's income, we need to adhere to justice and equality.

Let's explore the subject historically and go back to several decades ago; the years that the seed of intellectuality was planted in the country. But intellectuality in Iran is derived from socialism. Do you agree?
I do. Since the time of Pahlavi I, intellectuality possessed a socialistic nature, mainly because Pahlavi I was dependent on Brits and later on Germans. During that period, nationalism and socialism became more popular among intellectuals. Pahlavi II was also inclined towards England and of course the US. In fact, after World War II and the bipolar political system in the world, Iran was completely in favor of the West. As a consequence of political bipolarity, opposing and revolutionary parties in countries such as Iran supported the East. Therefore, Tudeh became increasingly influential and popular among intellectuals, after their activities were declared illegal by the government. Books with socialistic themes became popular subjects. This led many people with socialistic inclinations to explore economic debates optimistically, despite lacking the proper knowledge and understanding of the subject.

What about artists?
Yes. The attitude has left huge impact on the artistic community as well. Opposition against free economy, or more precisely 'capitalism' in their point of view, has become a trend among artists for well over fifty years. The impact is visible in movies, TV series and scripts. The fight of the good and the evil is a major theme in Iranian productions and in four-fifth of stories, the evil is usually a rich man; a capitalist, while the good that people root for lives in poverty and despite his needs, he never asks for charity from the rich. What I'm trying to say is that attaching moral virtues such as self-sacrifice, patience and seeking justice to poverty needs real reasons, well-thought-out and justifiable reasons, but we cannot see it happen in Iran's film-making industry.

The private-sector took the first steps towards development. Figures such as Amin al-Zarb played an undeniable role in the country's development. Back then, such individuals were popular among people, but nowadays it's the other way around and traders have lost reputation. Why is that so?
As oil gradually became a vital commodity for the country's economy, a minority of social climbers rose to power and got their hands on abundant oil revenues, without producing much added value for the country. The situation aggravated during Pahlavi II as the people in power only served their own interests unlike Amin al-Zarb. Inevitably, the image of the rich and religious was tainted for Iranians.

Iran's literature and cinema was at the receiving end of the wave of opposition. What led to the production of Ganj-e-Gharoon and movies alike?
The making of Ganj-e-Gharoon was absolutely natural and predictable. Ganj-e-Gharoon was among the first movies with negative approach towards wealth and the rich. Of course, the cultural root of such attitude goes deep into years before the making of Ganj-e-Gharoon. Sufism and mysticism heavily influenced by Eastern schools of thought and incorporated with religious principles and teachings, practically turned into fallacy. Abstinence replaced contentment, while these two are basically different. Contentment is self-awareness, self-containment and is defined by serving the society. Contentment is not equal to restraining one's self from facilities while serving the society. A dervish cannot aid the less fortunate. One needs to be rich and able in order to extend a helping hand towards the oppressed. Financial ability has been stressed on in Islamic teachings on numerous instances. Hazrat Ali and Imam Hussein are the prime examples of such attitude, and of course Prophet Muhammad himself who was involved in trading. Unfortunately, such rich teachings are forgotten and we turned to Indian mysticism instead. Schools of mysticism mostly promote convenience and comfort and in their examples, it's always 'the others' who must toil. Such attitude is in stark contrast with the period of Early Islam. After the Islamic Revolution, we opted to hold on to and promote many non-Islamic concepts in the society instead of having a thorough revision and refinement.

What about immutable interpretations of religion?
We needed to explicitly explore such debates. We had to seek the true meaning of economy, justice and freedom in Islam in the 21st century, but instead, declared such issues as forbidden fruits. We had to shed light on these critical subjects. Experts should have stepped forward to examine the place of each and every controversial subject in Islam.
How do you assess the impact of intellectuality with Marxism-bound inclinations? It's not to say that many Muslim scholars lean towards such inclinations and we can even follow the traces of such approach among clergymen, specifically with regards to economic issues.
This is also true, but many political parties such as Mojahedin Organization formed after the Islamic Revolution played a huge role in portraying a positive image of socialistic movements in Iran. They also managed to influence the religious part of the society. When their true nature and ill intentions were revealed, we came up with the opportunity to refine and reform political inclinations. Remember how Mojahedin's 'Economy in Simple Words' written by Mahmoud Asgarizadeh wasn't any different from economic teachings of Tudeh Party and People's Fedai Guerrillas organization. But in the beginning, Mojahedin were spared from criticism due being branded an Islamic faction. The issue was dealt with in economy with no less caution than in politics. Critics were prone to being branded as pro-capitalists. After the Islamic Revolution and widespread political enlightenment, we had to grasp the opportunity to refine and revise economic approaches. It never happened, because we faced a war and speaking of economic freedom, human dignity during the war sounded absurd and unnecessary. The most critical issue of people at the time of war was food and the provision of basic commodities. Under such severe circumstances, you cannot think of developing intellectual freedom in economy. I find a strong relation between economic freedom and freedom of thought in terms of economy. When society is under imposed political situation, the same will happen to economy.

Do you believe the opposition of artists against free economy comes from a lack of knowledge or their hostility with the free system?
We can't oversee the role of culture in this regard. According to Friedrich Hayek, lack of knowledge is followed by opposition and enmity. Many a times, people have no true understanding of the terms they use. It's sad to say that some common swear words in the society are in fact economic activities, while in productive economies, only having a job is important and not the type of job. Thus, farmers and workers are regarded with respect only in movies. Ridiculing certain jobs and activities penetrated our culture long ago and we need to correct this attitude. I assume that we need to sit down with artists and cultural incumbents to discuss economic debates.

What should be clarified for them?
For those who have to do with art and culture, essentially justice and cultural justice is an ideal concept just like freedom. But it's economists who have to step forward to start a conversation with artists and speak of the definition of freedom in the 21st century. For instance, the sense of freedom in IT and that equal access of all to information and resources is a clear example of freedom in the modern era. One of the most unfortunate partialities nowadays is unequal access to information. Economists must explain that besides easily understandable micro-economic that arise empathy; various macro-economic subjects need be carefully observed as well. Budget deficit is a form of impartiality since it increases the inflation. But film-makers are remotely familiar with an issue such as budget deficit and it's hard for authors, script-writers and poets to have a clear understanding of these notions. In productive and developed economies, artists explore such concerns by heart. The directors of developed industries have trained artists to inform workers, farmers, etc. of the detriments of inflation with finesse and delicacy. We need to make a hero of our successful entrepreneurs. We need to show the youth not to rely on the government. We must show them the way towards entrepreneurship and independence from the government, while the government is struggling with their employee and has turned to thrift and cost reduction. According to the President, we need to approach the young generation with sincerity and urge them to promote entrepreneurship instead of relying on the government. The message needs loads of movies and stories to spread. Rather than portraying the rich as oppressive, we must show the services they have done for the good of the society. I personally know a number of people who have spent all their wealth for charity.