War and Peace in Qajar Persia: Implications Past and ... - Oguzlar.az

Crime, security, and insecurity 181From the point of view of theft, Azerbaijan, Isfahan, Khorasan, andHamedan, in that order, had the worst conditions. Tehran had the largestnumber of thefts, but then the case of the capital was exceptional as the eventsof Tehran received the most attention and it was the centre of the greatestpolitical upheavals. It was also where the richest people lived; it had a growingpopulation and considerable numbers of immigrants, and no doubtmany unemployed people. There were luxury goods in the shops and tradewas growing.Interestingly the average rate of theft and banditry for Fars and the countryas a whole are not too dissimilar, and is an important contrast to thatof Astarabad. The average rate of theft was 8 per year for the country and5.6 for Fars, whereas for Astarabad it was 26. Banditry incidence was 11.6for the country as a whole, 10.6 for Fars, and 67 for Astarabad. The numberof arrests was also not too divergent, 48 per cent for Fars and 54 percentfor the whole country. The goods stolen or plundered during all thethefts and banditry raids also did not vary much between Fars and the restof country, but varied as to be expected in Astarabad.CONCLUSIONThis chapter offers a preliminary attempt at analyzing the vast amount ofinformation we have concerning the state of crime and criminality in Iran,from the mid-nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. This was aperiod of growing economic depression, unsuccessful reforms, foreign dominance,and growing weakness of the central government, not to mention,political change, and a constitutional revolution. These developments naturallyhad an adverse affect on society and created immense social and economictensions. However certain conditions were unchangeable from timeimmemorial such as the physical geography of Iran, the primitive state ofthe roads and communication (although of course, the trans-Persian railroadwas built at this time), and the existence of semi-autonomous tribes thathad always been unruly and a source of insecurity. With these conditions inmind, the question to answer is how far crime and criminality were due tothe changes society was undergoing, and how far it was due to the existingand unchanging conditions of the country.Certain conclusions can be drawn from this preliminary survey. Banditry wasmore widespread than theft and the goods plundered were more considerable.The state of insecurity was not so much linked to economic distress but ratherto the structure of the society and social relations. On the other hand, wesee that most of the robbery and looting was done by tribes, which was probablyas much a way of life as due to economic circumstances. The worst affectedareas were not necessarily those suffering most from economic regression.The government authorities were unsuccessful in curbing the rate ofcrime. In many instances government forces were the cause of insecurity and