پژوهش های تاریخی (Mar 2022)
A New Interpretation of the Political Relations between Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar and Zaman Shah Durrani
Abstract
AbstractDifferent and conflicting opinions have been expressed about the political relations between Agha Mohammad Khan and Zaman Shah. According to contemporary Afghan scholars, Zaman Shah was assumed to be an independent king with a realm beyond its realm. Thus, they have provided a specific interpretation of some of his political actions such as sending an ambassador to Tehran and corresponding with Agha Mohammad Khan. In contrast, a significant number of Iranian scholars consider Zaman Shah to be merely a local ruler that has attempted to separate parts of Iranian territory. The main purpose of this study is to critically evaluate these narratives and reach a new interpretation of these relationships. In this perspective, the narration of the Qajar and Durrani sources on the issue of Khorasan, the borders of the two sides on the side of Khorasan, and the exchange of ambassadors are examined. One of the main questions is, as a significant number of scholars have stated, is the following: Can the relations between Agha Mohammad Khan and Zaman Shah be evaluated on the basis of the Sultan governor model? In the present study, Durrani and Qajar narratives have been compared simultaneously using a comparative method. Based on such comparative method, we believe that Ahmad Shah, as one of the leaders of Nader Shah's army and his grandson Zaman Shah, like Agha Mohammad Khan, sought to gain power in Iran not separating it from the motherland. It is assumed here that that Zaman Shah did not seek to separate any part from the territory of Iran and the events of the following decades and the British colonial policies should not be related to the Durians retrospectively. As such, in some cases, our interpretation of events is based on subsequent events and not on the events themselves and the persons involved in the event.IntroductionAfter the assassination of Nader Shah Afshar, his fledgling government quickly collapsed and members of the family and the commanders of his army fought with each other for power. In the meantime, Ahmad Khan Abdali, one of the commanders of Nader, succeeded in forming a government in the eastern regions of Iran and parts of India. This action of the former general Nader Shah later took on other meanings. This means that Ahmad Khan himself had the intention and motive to separate some parts from his homeland. But like other commanders, he was just trying to gain power. However, later the course of events took place in such a way that a co-government called Afghanistan was formed with the intervention of the British. Had Durrans conquered all of Iran, would we interpret the behavior of Ahmad Shah and Zaman Shah in its current form? It seems that sometimes our interpretation of events is based on subsequent events. In the present study, the relations between Zaman Shah and Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar are reconsidered with regard to the intentions and behaviors of the actors of that time.Materials and MethodsIn the present study, Durrani and Qajar narratives have been compared simultaneously using a comparative method. The main problem in previous studies has been the lack of a comparative method as the focus of Iranian researchers on Qajar sources and the focus of Afghan researchers on Durrani sources; therefore, the narration of each of the parties has been known in advance.Discussion of Results and Conclusions The historiography of the Durians and Afghans on the one hand and the Qajars on the other has been more realistic about the relations between the two kings in the past than today and despite the passing of time, biased narratives and interpretations have penetrated historiography in order to preserve national interests. If history is subject to politics, then, not the events themselves, but the past and present interests of governments and nations would determine the trajectory, analysis, and explanation of events. The present study exposes erroneous narratives, scholars' misconceptions and views based on the national interests of Iranian and Afghan historians.
Keywords
