The instrumental misuse of MKO founders and history – part 2
Of the current issues prevalent in the world of politics regarding the challenges MKO has risen to is that Rajavi has manipulated the history of MKO and its founders. It is said that he and his fellows have made an attempt to misuse the history of the organization in a way to legitimize his unauthentic leadership imposed on the organization and its members. Here a number of fabricated memories made by a number of self-seeker MKO members are reviewed in order to bring the matter to light. In this regard, Mohammad Hayati, one of the theoreticians of the ideological revolution introduces Rajavi as the sole advisor of Hanifnejad and says:
I saw no one closer and more active than Masoud in discussion and negotiation with Mohammad [Hanifnejad], no one even Saeed [Mohsen] and Asqar [Badizadegan]. 1
Mehdi Khodaee-Sefat who has not met Hanifnejad grabs at other techniques in order to exalt Rajavi, saying:
Once in 1972, I met Masoud in cell No. 3 in Qasr prison and discovered the mysteries of life in him. Again, in 1975, in the cell No. 6 when I heard his voice for the second time, it was as if I got everything in a blink of an eye and considered the tortures of prison and Savak unimportant. 2
Hamid Asadian, Mojahedin’s poet, makes a generalization and states:
Masoud represents the revolutionary values of a generation who had a historical presence in the political, social, and cultural scene of Iran since 1965. 3
All resistances, solution findings, victories and in a nutshell the survival of Mojahedin depends on one person who represents the ideals of Mojahed generation. He is the story of Mojahedin and Mojahedin are his story. 4
And Abrishamchi introduces Rajavi as the sole discoverer of Hanifnejad, stating:
His role [Hanifnejad] was a unique historical and ideological one which was unknown at his time. Just one person, Masoud, discovered it and made a close relationship with him and paid a considerable cost for doing so. 5
In order to check the truthfulness of these statements, we’d better take a brief look at the statements made by Lotfollah Meisami, one of the closest cadres to Hanifnejad, and raise the question that why all these fabricated memories have been recalled simultaneously and after a number of decades and all have a similar theme and form.
Meisami expounds on some points in contradiction to those mentioned before. In contrast to what Rajavi’s allies mean by fabricating theses memories, he says that the main reason Hanifnejad paid more attention to Rajavi was the flaws he had had noticed in Rajavi including selfishness, vanity, egoism and so forth. Thus, Hanifnejad always had him under full control and warned him of his flaws. According to Meisami:
It has to be pointed out that everyone has some traces of egoism and vanity. Yet, in a well-formed organization, all these defects can be surmounted. It was so for Rajavi too and whenever he was in their companion, Mohammad and Saeed kept close to him and controlled him fully. 6
In the same period of time, the personality of Masoud Rajavi came under question and there appeared many quotations from Hanifnejad. For instance, Hanifnejad was quoted saying that the prevalent egoism in Masoud would be destructive for the organization. The members of central council of leadership were well aware of this statement. 7
Interestingly, in these memories there are some individuals who took a hostile position toward Rajavi at that time and now have changed their mind and come to remember, or better to say fabricating, memories in Rajavi’s favor:
After the schism of 1971 and its consequences, the issue of the leadership was raised in Qasr prison. There were seventy members therein and they needed to be organized so Masoud was already in charge of solving problems. For example, if someone or something was snitched he informed those outside and also made us aware of the outside news. After the imprisonment of Bahman Bazargan, they cooperated with each other, yet when the number of members increased and almost all Mojahedin came to prison, Masoud came under question to some extent. Some members like Musa Khiabani, Fathollah Khamene’i, Kazem Shafiee, Nabi Moazemi, Ebrahim Avoukh, and those gone to Palestine criticized Masoud for his flaws. 8
Furthermore, Meisami points out that Rajavi was so isolated in goal and neglected by MKO prisoners that despite assuming the leadership of the organization, prisoners formed a council of leadership in the prison and conducted polls in which Rajavi was defeated:
There were a lot of members in Qasr prison and it seemed that nothing could fill the void left by the martyrdom of the founders. Also, members were unsure of Rajavi. It was said that there had to open polls for selecting the central cadre in which Musa Khiabani and two other candidates were at the lead; but Rajavi got no vote. 9
In another part of the memories of Meisami, it has been stated that:
Members refrained to accept a fixed leadership. So polls were carried out in which Fathollah Khamene’i, Kazem Shafiee and Musa Khiabani were elected for the first central cadre in the prison yet Rajavi got just a single vote. 10
Most important of all, Meisami believes that Rajavi followed a different path after the execution of founders and even considered them as outsiders:
After the martyrdom of the founders, some members like Masoud Rajavi had a different viewpoint against the early founders and even refrained to consider the former members of the organization as true insiders. 11
1. The book of founders, MKO publications, p.121.
2. ibid, p.138
3. ibid, p.160
4. ibid, p.161
5. ibid, p.87
6. Meisami, Lotfollah; Degeneration of a Mojahed, Mojahed journal, No. 32.
7. The memoirs of Lotfollah Meisami, 2003, p.74
8. ibid, p.194
9. Meisami, Lotfollah; Degeneration of a Mojahed, Mojahed journal, No. 32.
10. The memoirs of Lotfollah Meisami, 2003, p.194.
11. ibid, p.157