Khosrow Golsorkhi, Iranian journalist, poet, and activist (d. 1974)

Khosrow Golsorkhi (Persian: خسرو گلسرخی; 23 January 1944 – 18 February 1974) was a prominent Iranian figure, renowned as a journalist, a revolutionary poet, and a committed communist. His activism marked him as a significant Marxist voice in Iran during the intense geopolitical climate of the Cold War. Historian Hooman Majd notably characterized Golsorkhi as a "Che Guevara-like figure for young Iranians in 1974," a comparison underscoring his charismatic defiance and revolutionary zeal that resonated deeply with the youth.

The Trial and Charges: A Public Spectacle of Defiance

Golsorkhi, celebrated for his powerful leftist and revolutionary poetry that often critiqued social injustices and political oppression, found himself at the epicenter of a high-profile military trial. Alongside his close friend, Keramat Daneshian, a director, he was accused and subsequently convicted of plotting to kidnap Reza Pahlavi, the then Crown Prince of Iran. This charge, frequently employed by the Pahlavi regime against its political opponents, was often seen as a pretext to silence dissenting voices.

The trial, which commenced in 1974, gained extraordinary attention as it was televised live, a highly unusual occurrence for a military court proceeding in Iran. This decision was largely strategic, coinciding with Mohammad Reza Shah's hosting of the International Conference for Human Rights in Tehran. The Shah's regime ostensibly aimed to project an image of transparency and adherence to due process on the international stage, yet this public display inadvertently amplified Golsorkhi's defiant stand, transforming the trial into a potent symbol of state hypocrisy and repression.

A Climate of Fear: The Regime's Record of Suppression

The public nature of Golsorkhi's trial unfolded against a backdrop of widespread public discontent and suspicion concerning the Shah's regime and its intelligence agency, SAVAK. Many unexplained deaths and disappearances of prominent intellectuals and national figures were widely attributed to the government, fueling an atmosphere of fear and distrust. These included:

• Forough Farrokhzad: A pioneering modernist poet whose untimely death in a car accident in 1967 was officially declared accidental, yet many suspected foul play. Her poetry, deeply engaged with themes of freedom and social critique, famously spoke of the yearning for someone who would "distribute bread and cough mixture equally," symbolizing a universal desire for justice and equitable distribution of resources.
• Gholamreza Takhti: A beloved folk hero and Olympic gold medalist wrestler whose tragic death in a hotel in 1968 was officially ruled a suicide. This explanation was widely disbelieved by the public, who viewed him as a national symbol of integrity and believed he was murdered by SAVAK due to his perceived anti-regime sentiments and popularity.
• Samad Behrangi: An influential writer and educator known for his children's stories that subtly (and sometimes overtly) addressed social inequality and poverty. His drowning in the Aras River in 1968, though officially an accident, was widely seen as suspicious and attributed to the regime.
• Ali Shariati: A profoundly influential sociologist, revolutionary, and Islamist intellectual whose death abroad in London in 1977 was widely attributed to SAVAK. His ideas significantly shaped the intellectual discourse leading up to the 1979 Revolution.

In addition to these high-profile cases, the regime was also responsible for the widespread tortures, killings, and executions of numerous activists involved in armed uprisings against the government. This pervasive repression made Golsorkhi's unwavering defiance in court particularly impactful and courageous, resonating deeply with a populace exhausted by state violence and censorship.

Golsorkhi's Unforgettable Defiance in Court

In a dramatic turn during his 1974 trial, just as the military judges seemed to gain control, Golsorkhi seized the narrative with a powerful statement that transformed the courtroom atmosphere. Addressing the court, he declared, "In the glorious name of the people. I will defend myself in a court which I neither recognise its legality nor its legitimacy. As a Marxist my address is to the people and history. The more you attack me the more I pride myself, the further I am from you the closer I am to the people. The more your hatred for my beliefs, the stronger the kindness and support of the people. Even if you bury me—and you certainly will—people will make flags and songs from my corpse." This declaration, imbued with revolutionary fervor, encapsulated his rejection of the regime's authority and his unwavering commitment to his ideals.

When Colonel Ghaffarzadeh, the presiding judge, admonished him to focus solely on his personal defense, Golsorkhi retorted with a wry smile, asking, "Are you frightened of my words?" The judge, visibly agitated, shouted back, "I order you shut up and sit down." With eyes flashing in anger, Golsorkhi passionately defied him: "Don't you give me any orders. Go and order your corporals and squadron leaders. I doubt if my voice is loud enough to awaken a sleeping conscience here. Don't be afraid. Even in this so-called respectable court, bayonets protect you." This defiant exchange highlighted his contempt for the court's perceived lack of justice and emphasized the raw power dynamic, where the regime relied on military force rather than moral authority.

The Core of Golsorkhi's Defense: Marxist-Leninist Principles

Earlier in the trial, Golsorkhi had presented his defense, articulating that his true "crime" was not the alleged conspiracy but his Marxist views. He powerfully stated, "Iranian society should know that I am here being tried and condemned to death purely for holding Marxist views. My crime is not conspiracy, nor an assassination but my views." He directly accused the court, those who fabricated the dossier against him, and the "irresponsible judges" of orchestrating a "stage-managed farce" and a "state crime." He explicitly called upon "all human rights authorities, committees, and organisations" to witness this travesty of justice.

Golsorkhi further declared himself a "Marxist-Leninist," a political ideology advocating for a classless society through revolution. Notably, he also asserted, "I respect Islamic sharia'," a significant statement in a predominantly Muslim country, suggesting a nuanced position or an attempt to bridge ideological divides within the broader opposition movement. He passionately articulated his core belief: "nowhere in the world, in countries like ours which are dependent to and dominated by neo-colonialism, can a truly national government exist unless a Marxist infrastructure is created in society." This statement directly challenged the Shah's pro-Western policies and denounced the pervasive influence of foreign powers in Iran, a key tenet of anti-imperialist thought during the Cold War era. His words resonated with a population increasingly aware of Iran's economic and political dependency.

The Interrupted Defense and Final Defiance

Initially granted an opportunity to present his own defense, Golsorkhi began with remarkable eloquence, drawing a powerful parallel between the struggle of the Iranian left and that of Imam Hussein, the revered martyr of Shia Islam. This comparison was profoundly significant in the Iranian context, linking his secular revolutionary struggle to a deeply ingrained religious narrative of martyrdom and resistance against tyranny, thereby legitimizing his cause for a broader, religiously observant audience.

He then broadened his discourse to critique the "evils of land reform" implemented under the Shah's "White Revolution." While officially aimed at modernizing Iran's agricultural sector by redistributing land from large landowners to peasants, these reforms often led to dispossession, increased poverty, and further exploitation for many, fueling widespread discontent among the rural population. Golsorkhi passionately highlighted the plight of Iranian peasants, who had suffered first under the feudal system and then under what he considered the corrupt and ineffective land reforms.

At this point, the chief judge of the military tribunal intervened, instructing Golsorkhi to limit his speech strictly to his personal defense. Golsorkhi's response was resolute: he declared that his defense was inextricably linked to "the defense of the masses against tyranny." When the judge reiterated his demand to confine the speech to personal matters, Golsorkhi, with a final gesture of defiance, picked up his papers and announced, "I will then sit down. I will not speak and I will sit down." He then remained silent for the remainder of the proceedings. When later pressed by the court if he would continue his "terrorist business"—the court's term for his revolutionary activities—he simply affirmed, "Yes," sealing his commitment to his cause.

Martyrdom and Legacy: An Enduring Symbol

The announcement of death sentences for both Daneshian and Golsorkhi was met not with despair, but with a serene smile from both men. They shook hands and embraced, Golsorkhi uttering "Comrade!" to which Daneshian responded, "My best comrade!" This moment of solidarity underscored their shared commitment and courage in the face of death.

Khosrow Golsorkhi's execution, carried out on 18 February 1974, was an extraordinary event as it was broadcast on state television. This highly unusual decision by the regime was intended to serve as a deterrent to other dissidents, yet it profoundly backfired. Instead, the trial and Golsorkhi's defiant conduct transformed him into a powerful martyr and a symbol of the Shah's dictatorship and its inherent hypocrisy. Despite the regime's attempts to control the narrative, most of the trial proceedings were heavily censored to prevent the public from witnessing the extent of Golsorkhi's intellectual and moral challenge to the court's legitimacy.

After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the complete footage of the trial was, for a period, broadcast on public television, highlighting the revolutionary government's initial embrace of anti-Shah symbols. However, in a telling turn of events, it was again censored after the fall of Mehdi Bazargan's provisional government, perhaps due to the Marxist and secular nature of Golsorkhi's defiance, which did not align with the new Islamic Republic's ideological framework.

Golsorkhi's unwavering bravery in his final moments cemented his legendary status. He was acclaimed as a hero by socialist guerrillas, particularly for his refusal to be blindfolded before his execution. The cell in Jamshidiyeh prison where he and Daneshian spent their last night (February 17, 1974) was found covered with revolutionary slogans. They sang revolutionary songs throughout the night, shared a quiet supper, and shouted slogans to the soldiers transporting them to the Chitgar execution field. Their refusal of blindfolds, wanting to "see the red dawn," and their collective singing of "O comrades! Heroes! We will give our life for our country without fear..." before reportedly giving the order to fire themselves, enshrined them as enduring symbols of resistance and self-sacrifice.

Golsorkhi's Vision for Art and Social Change

Beyond his political activism and defiant martyrdom, Khosrow Golsorkhi articulated a profound philosophy regarding the role of art and literature in society. He believed that true art must serve a higher purpose, directly engaging with and empowering the populace. As he wrote, "A person has an artistic eye whose art has a wider link with the people. ... an artist has a style that forges a link to the life of the people of his land and keeps the torch of struggle alight in them."

Golsorkhi rejected the notion of art for art's sake or confining it to academic "literary schools." He argued, "This style may not fit any literary school, just as the poetry of the Palestinian Fadayeens does not. Why should it fit any literary school? Why imprison our poetry, which is our only effective art form, in literary and stylistic schools?" His reference to the Palestinian Fedayeen, guerrilla fighters and poets, underscored his belief that art should be a weapon in liberation struggles, not merely an aesthetic pursuit. For Golsorkhi, "The place of a poem is not in libraries, but in tongues and minds," emphasizing its living, active role in public discourse and consciousness. He firmly believed that "Literature must retain the role it always had in social movements for us too in the displacement of social order, and fulfill it. The role of literature is to awaken. The role of progressive literature is to create social movements and to help attain the goals of historic development of peoples." This vision positioned literature not just as a reflection of society, but as a crucial catalyst for its transformation and development.

Frequently Asked Questions About Khosrow Golsorkhi

Who was Khosrow Golsorkhi?

Khosrow Golsorkhi was a prominent Iranian journalist, poet, and Marxist communist activist who became a symbol of defiance against the Pahlavi regime in the 1970s.

Why was Khosrow Golsorkhi executed?

He was executed on February 18, 1974, after being convicted by a military court, alongside Keramat Daneshian, of plotting to kidnap the Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. Golsorkhi maintained his execution was for his Marxist views, not for conspiracy.

What was the significance of Golsorkhi's trial?

The trial, which was televised live, became a potent symbol of the Shah's hypocrisy and dictatorship. Golsorkhi used the court as a platform to openly challenge the regime, expose its human rights abuses, and articulate his revolutionary Marxist ideology, turning his prosecution into a public indictment of the government.

Who was Keramat Daneshian?

Keramat Daneshian was a director and Golsorkhi's friend who was tried and executed alongside him on the same charges of plotting to kidnap the Crown Prince.

What were Khosrow Golsorkhi's views on art and literature?

Golsorkhi believed that art and literature should be deeply connected to the people and serve as instruments of social and political awakening. He argued that poetry's true place was "in tongues and minds," not confined to academic schools, and that progressive literature must create social movements and help achieve historical development for people.