What I meant is that the whole movement of "revival" was somewhat nationalistic, surrounding the foundations of persian unity, unlikely combination of Safavi-influenced Shia traditions with Shahname. I don't want to pretend to be an expert on this one.
It is all connected to the ideology of Persian Empire: what it is based upon and who is considered to be part of it. I can give you an example - despite almost uninterrupted rule or turkoman and turkoman related leaders their rule was never seen as turkish occupation or domination, despite the fact that persians per se were confined to mostly ulema (islamic "priesthood" of a kind) and some non-military, non-trade and non-industry related goverment jobs. At the same time a short period of Afghan control over Persia is considered to be an occupation by Afghani. In my opinion it is based on some shared values, i.e. since Safavids Persia was perceived as a Shia state with a "remembrance" of its pre-islamic past; the tribes that shared this, with no regard to their language or history would at some level be considered Persian, the tribes that were Sunni or Najes would be considered on some level outsiders.
If you ask Talysh (i.e. persian speaking tribe from Azerbaijan) he will tell you that Persian Empire has to be rebuilt to unite the Shias and restore the old culture of Shahname. If you ask Lezghi (neighboring mostly Sunni tribe that is very proud of its old caucasian traditions rather than persian culture) whether he likes Persian Empire to be restored he will most likely react extremely violently.
Qajar Revival, Passion plays is probably something most symbolic of such "Persianism".
|