Friday, March 28, 2014

Iraq's unique Islamic Shi'a shrines explained


Najaf: Ali Bin abi Taleb Shrine is the third holiest for the Shi'a (or Shiite) Islam after Mecca and Medina. It is followed by the Mosques in nearby Karbala where Ali's younger son Hussein and family were massacred by the Omayyad in the battle of Karbala in 680 AD


Iraq has been at the very center of the world news scene for all the wrong reasons. An artificial war in a country with artificially drawn borders by colonial powers. The land of Iraq is as historic as it gets and very few spots on earth can claim so much credit in the development of Human History and Civilization. The fertile lowland is richly watered by the rivers Euphrates and Tigris, and the "land between the rivers" is what was called Mesopotamia. Assyria, Babylon, Nineveh, Ur, Sumer are all household names of the past, but few realize that since the 7th century Iraq has always taken a center stage in all the events shaping the early days of Islam as a religion and as an empire. This is why Baghdad, Karbala, Najaf, Kufa and Samarra are hugely important.  Islam was shaped in the Arabian Peninsula but it was in Iraq that major events took place and shaped the Muslim world in the 7th century and on.

Little has changed since since these early days and Iraq is still the dangerous fault line that has shaped Arab and Islam cultures for two main distinctive reasons:

Iraq is the easternmost "frontier" of the Arabic world , east of which Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. are mostly Muslim but not Arab, while the north is mostly Turkic and historically Armenian. Iraq also represents the tricky "fault line" and bloody rivalry between the Sunni and the Shi'a branches of Islam. Sunnis or "mainstream" Muslims may well represent around 80% of Islam, but in Iraq the Arab Shi'a form a clear majority and interestingly share that belief with their neighboring Iranians. Since colonial times and until the Saddam era the minority Sunnis were in firm control of the country, but George W. Bush put the Shi'a in the driving seat in Baghdad. This Shi'a led government does not bode well with most of the Sunni governments from Saudi Arabia to Egypt and beyond (see the map below).




Sunni-Shi'a schism: The Islamic world is predominantly of the Sunni sect divided into 4 major legal traditions. The population in Persian Gulf region are often Sh'ia, mostly Itna'ashari "Twelvers". Globally, the Shi'a account for an estimated 15-20 percent of the Muslim population, but they dominate the population of Iran, compose a majority in Iraq, and are significant minorities in other nations, including Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Syria.  (C.I.A. World Fact book and Operation Reveille Map).




 Institutional development of Islam: The first four "Rashidun" Caliphs after Muhammad and the subsequent split between the Sunnis (following Omayyad) and the Shi'a (following Ali Bin Abi Taleb and sons Hassan and Hussein) (Operation Reveille chart)

But how come Iraq is so different from most of its Arab neighbors and has a Shi'a Arab majority? And how come all the major Shi'a shrines are all in Iraq? The answers are of course embedded in history. We shall try to explain the circumstances and present the major shrines within the Iraq and their significance.

Upon the Death of Prophet Muhammad (632 AD), the Muslim leadership was confronted with major headaches, plots and imbroglio regarding the succession to the Caliph role. By all accounts, Mohamed was an absolute genius: Not only he founded a new and major monotheistic religion but he also created a very successful military and political entity that grew from nothing to a majestic empire within a few decades. Muhammad was a unique personality and choosing a successor naturally proved to be very difficult, divisive and a bloody affair that unfortunately continues to this day. Any Caliph succeeding Mohamed had to be the real leader of the mushrooming Empire and religion, having all the powers held by Mohamed himself except the Prophecy. But choosing the successors proved catastrophic for the unity of the ranks.

The first four Rashidun (righteously guided) Caliphs that succeeded Muhammad were: 



-Abu Bakr As Siddiq: (632-634 A.D: Mohamed's father in law, expanded the Muslim empire to Syria and Iraq and confronted the Byzantines and the Persian Sassanids. He consolidated the Koran. He died of illness. Shi'a do not hold him in high esteem because he was chosen over Ali despite all his incredible credentials and qualities.

-Umar ibn al Khattab (634-644 A.D.): Expanded the Muslim Empire by ruling over Sassanid Persia and to modern Libya. He was  a great political and military leader but almost hated by the Shia for his fierce opposition to Ali. Umar was decisive and even could afford to dismiss the Arab military genius Khalid bin Waleed who had spearheaded most of the military expansion of the new empire without ever being defeated. Umar was assassinated by the a Persian while praying in Medina.

Uthman Ibn Affan, Third Caliph, a hate figure for the Shi'a because of his supposed fierce opposition to Ali and his Omayyad lineage.

-Uthman ibn Affan (644-656 A.D.)Married to Muhammad's daughter Ruqayya, he was a member of the Omayyad clan and reputedly the Fourth person to convert to Islam. Under his reign the Muslim empire reached all the way to Morocco and Afghanistan. He was assassinated in Medina and buried in the famous Jannat al Baqi cemetery destroyed by the Saudis (see details below)

-Ali ibn abi Taleb (656-661 A.D.). Fourth caliph for the Sunni but first imam for the Shi'a.  He too was an exceptional man, married to Muhammad's daughter Fatima al-Zahra from his first wife Khadija and his father was an uncle to the Prophet. Ali is considered as the first person to have converted to the new religion revealed my his uncle and he was also reputedly the only person being born in the Holy Ka'aba in Mecca (which was a pagan shrine at the time).  Ali was a great narrator and military leader. Ali’s appointment as Caliph accelerated the internal struggles and caused a civil war and a major schism in Islam. Ali was challenged on multiple fronts and fought several battles against his rivals within the Muslim hierarchy. He was finally assassinated by his enemies in 658 in Kufa and his murder brought to end what was known as the era of the “righteously guided caliphs”. Ali’s supporters accepted his son Hassan (and later his other son Hussein) as caliph, however the majority rallied behind Ali’s opponent Abi Sufyan, a kinsman of Uthman who founded the Omayyad dynasty in Damascus.

Ali's legendary double edged sword called the Zulficar Ali. (Note that Pakistan's ex-prime minister and Benazir's father was named Zulficar Ali.) This is a replica sword sold as an expensive gift for those who can afford the extra protection it provides!
It is to note that the first four Caliphs were very close friends and relatives of the Prophet and they were chosen by a collegial decisions or consensus based on "merit" and value. However this system was rejected by the followers of Ali bin abi Taleb who felt that Ali must have been the automatic and obvious choice to succeed his Father-in-Law and Cousin Muhammad.  Ali did not openly fight the nomination of the preceding three Caliphs and waited for his turn, but he was obviously irritated and rejected the notion of "consensus". For Ali and his followers the Prophet's family ties were overwhelming and therefore other means or criteria to choose  successors were simply invalid. Shi'a firmly believe that Ali and all his descendants (known collectively as the Ahlul Bayt, or the Household) must have had absolute priority to rule as Caliphs. But it was not to be.

Shi'a Islam has several branches, the largest of which is the "Twelvers", and they share a lot with the Sunnis but disagree as far as legal opinions, texts and Words attributed to the Prophet etc. Other groups of Shi'a exist as well such as the "Ismai'li" and the "Zaidi", who in their turn disagree with the Twelvers over lines of successors and the lineage of Imams following Ali.


Shi'a Imams: Likenesses of Ali bin abi Taleb and his son Hussein.
The death of Ali did ot put an end to the ugly infighting. Ali's son Hussein had participated in his father's effort to succeed Muhammad and when his father died his older brother Hassan and another claimant, Muawiyah, fought for Ali's position. Muawiyah reinforced his position as a leader when Hassan abdicated and agreed to go on a forced retirement to Medina, and Hussein did not object. However, when Muawiyah sought to name his son Yazid as his successor, which would create the Omayyad dynasty, Hussein became the leader of an anti-Yazid movement and left Mecca for Kufa. While stopped at Karbala, 4,000 men from Yazid's army arrived, cut off Hussein's access to water and food, and ordered him to acknowledge Yazid's authority. Hussein and 72 followers refused and were massacred. Hussein's head was taken to Damascus to be displayed before Yazid (680 AD).  

Only Hussein’s ill son Ali ibn Hussein (a.k.a. Zayn al-‘Abidīn) survived of the Imam’s male relatives and companions. His sister, Sayyida Zaynab, and his daughters were among the survivors of his band. They were all taken back in chains to Damascus in Syria, the stronghold and capital of Omayyad power of Mu'awiya. The victims were were buried in Karbala. The shrine was erected over the graves,  and since then the Shia celebrate Ashura, the annual holiday marking the anniversary of Hussein's death.


After consolidating their power, the Omayyad completely transferred the power center of the Muslim Empire from Mecca to Damascus and continued what is now known as the Sunni Islam lineage. The followers of Ali and his sons Hassan and Hussein and the subsequent Mahdi (Shi'a) were left in the minority and militarily beaten, but continued to believe in the justness of their their struggle. Therefore the Ali lineage continued through his sons Hassan and Hussein and 9 other Imams until the "disappearance" of the twelfth Imam called Al-Mahdi from the Iraqi city of  Samarra. The disappeared Imam is expected to come back. It is obvious that the Iraqi territory was the theater of the major schism that occurred between the early Muslim factions and therefore it is easy to understand why all the major Shi'a shrines are situated in Iraq or in Syria where the family members of the Karbala massacre were taken after Hussein's death. 

Most of the population are Muslim Arabs, divided into the Sunni Muslim of central Iraq and Shi'a Muslim  of the south. The Kurds inhabit the north along with some Turkomans and Yazidis, mostly in rural areas as well as around 2 million Christians live in Iraq, mostly Chaldean and Assyrian. Arabic is the official language in most of the country, Kurdish is official in northern sections. (Salaam.co.uk)
Najaf and Kufa:

Najaf is understandably the most important Shi'a city as the site of the tomb of Ali Bin abi Taleb (first Imam of the Shi'a and fourth of the Caliphs). Therefore Najaf has an unparalleled importance to the hundreds of millions of Muslims and Shia in particular. 

After the assassination of the third Caliph Uthman,  Ali ibn abi Taleb was finally chosen as the fourth Caliph until he was assassinated as a result of all the internal struggles and intrigues in  Kufa. Ali was finally was buried in nearby Najaf where his Mosque and shrine stand today.

Najaf is where his political power center was and he we was assassinated in the twin city Kufa.

Najaf receives millions of pilgrims from around the world and many elderly people go there and await death and to be buried in the As-Salaam cemetery as an ultimate dedication to Ali. Both Najaf and Karbala are believed to be Gates to Heaven. Najaf cemetery is thought to be the largest in the world with more than an estimated 5 million burials.

As the most important Shi'a shrine, Najaf has always been the site of attacks by Sunnis throughout the ages and also was the center of a large armed uprising against the U.S. led coalition forces. Since the fall of Saddam, Najaf has reclaimed its position as the most important theological learning center in Shi'a Islam. The father of the Iranian Islamic revolution Ayatollah Khomeini spent 14 years in exile in Najaf before his triumphant return to Iran after deposing the Shah Mohamed Reza Pahlavi Shah in 1979.


Najaf: Imam Ali Bin abi Taleb Mosque. He was assassinated in the nearby city of Kufa by rivals. He is considered the first Imam by the Shi'a and the fourth Caliph by the Sunnis.



Najaf: Wadi al-Salaam Cemetery, the world's largest with more than 5 million burials: Iraqi Shi'a pilgrims march through this cemetery in Najaf, Iraq, on their way to Karbala with Imam Hussein flags. Shi'a make their annual pilgrimage to Karbala to mark the end of 40 days of mourning following the anniversary of the seventh century death of Imam Hussein, a grandson of the Prophet Mohamed and son of Ali. (AP Photo/Alaa al-Marjani)

Karbala:

The battle of Karbala occurred on October 10, 680 AD when the Omayyad Yazid ibn Muawiya massacred Ali’s son Hussein and 72 of his family and companions. The city has since been central to The Shi'a sect. The modern city of Karbala includes the Mosques dedicated to Imam Hussein (the Third Imam of the Shi'a) as well as the mosque in honor of his brother Abbas ibn Ali. The two mosques are very close and linked with a large public space. Karbala is therefore the fourth holiest site for the Shi'a after mecca, Medina and Najaf, where millions of pilgrims converge to the city for the commemoration of the battle during the Ashura (see photos below). Many hope to die and get buried right there and not return home!

Karbala of course has been an alien "concept" and philosophy to some Sunnis, and these shrines have been so many times destroyed and rebuilt. In 1802 the Sunni Wahhabi (forefathers of modern Saudi Arabia) attacked the city and demolished everything they could, trying to wipe out the Shi'a sacred shrines. Radical Sunnis consider Shi'a not much more than shameless heretics and enemies of "true Islam" as they understand it. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, Karbala did find a revival of Shi'a religious traditions and expressions, but the Sunni al-Qaeda linked zealot groups carried deadly bomb attacks against the pilgrims in 2004 and 2007, killing dozens of innocents. Karbala has also been the scene of armed uprisings against the US led forces occupying Iraq.

Karbala: Imam Hussein Shrine: millions of Shi'a across the region mark the climax of the 10-day Ashura rites mourning Imam Hussein's slaying in 680 A.D., entrenching the deep schism between the Shi'a followers and the majority Sunnis. These Shia rites have often been the target of attacks by Sunni militants consider the Shi'a some kind of heretics. Ashura was severely curtailed under (Sunni)  Saddam Hussein, but has seen a revival since the country was occupied by a U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Millions converge to the Shi'a holy city of Karbala. The other adjacent mosque is the Abbas ibn Ali Mosque, brother of Hussein.

Tehran: Karbalai'ya mosque during the Ashura rites. In a sign of mourning during Ashura, many Shi'a beat their chests to the sound of drums and religious chants, or flagellate themselves, often drawing blood in remembrance to Hussein's and his family's bloody end.

South Lebanon: Ashura in the city of Nabatiyeh under the watchful eyes of the regular Lebanese Army units. Most of these young men are followers of either Hezbollah or the other major Shi'a movement called Amal (Hope).


Zealots at work:A wounded Shi'a boy in Baghdad relies on Imam Hussein for speedy recovery after an attack on the pilgrims heading to Karbala (Photo: MSNBC). Attacks by Sunnis against Shi'a worshipers and the shrines have become kind of "normal" 

Samarra:

After Najaf and Karbala, the Iraqi city of Samarra has a very important Shi'a mosque built in 944. This mosque has the remains of the 10th and 11th Imams, namely Ali al Hadi and his son Hassan Al Askari,. hence the name of the mosque Al Askari. Samarra today is in a Sunni dominated area in Iraq and this mosque has been the target of very heavy attacks and bombings in 2006 and 2007 by Sunni extremist groups, almost totally destroying the golden dome and the minarets as well as the clock tower. Intolerance of extreme proportions. The last Imam is said to have "disappeared" from a nearby location and expected back.







Samarra: The Askari shrine before and after the deadly attacks by Sunni zealots to wipe out any "unacceptable" Shi'a influence or presence in the region.

Samarra: The unique architectural jewel Abbasid era mosque and the spiral snail shell like minaret (about 850 AD). It is said to be too high to be used as a true minaret!
Medina:




Medina: The Prophet's tomb and mosque (Masjid al-Nabawi) taken from Jannat al-Baqi cemetery. The total destruction of this cemetery to the rubble was done in 1920's by the Wahhabi who took control of the Holy City and founded Saudi Arabia. It was done in the name of extreme Monotheism banning all worship of human shrines. Many of Prophet Mohamed's closest relatives and companions were buried there. The deliberate destruction of the cemetery is particularly offensive to Shi'a who consider it to be an act of "barbarism" by the Saudis. Shi'a pilgrims occasionally stage improvised protests at the site despite heavy Saudi police crackdown (Photo: Flickr Chinx786).

The Jannat al-Baqi cemetery next to the Prophet Mohamed Mosque in Medina is of extreme importance to Shi'a. It was totally razed by the Wahhabi Saudis in the 1920. It contains the tombs of no less than 5 of the Twelver Shiite imams, including Ali’s eldest son Imam Hassan, Ali ibn Hussein (Imam Hussein’s son) and Fatima bint Assad (the mother of Ali). The destruction of the cemetery was done in the name of total ban for any kind of worship of humans as opposed to the strict worship of Allah. It is said the the Wahhabi were very close in destroying even Mohamed’s tomb by the same logic of forbidding idolatry of humans. The cemetery of Jannatul Mu’alla in Mecca is also held in very high esteem but is less "prestigious" than al-Baqi.


Baghdad: Kadhimiya mosque










Baghdad:The Kadhimiya mosque, with streets overflowing with pilgrims and traditional celebrations of a Shi'a commemoration. This mosque is the most important Shi'a shrine in Baghdad and is believed to have the remains of Imam Mussa al Kadhim, the seventh Imam of the Twelver Shi'a.
After Mecca, Medina and the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the Shi'a hold Najaf /Kufa and Karbala as their holiest places along with Samarra and the Kadhimiya in Baghdad.
Here are other very important shrines to Shi'a Islam, some also very important to all Muslims regardless of sect or denomination:

Damascus: Sayyidat Zaynab Mosque


Damascus: Sayyidat Zaynab Mosque Damascus has wonderful Iranian Kashani decorations. The dome, and the hanging chandeliers, stand on top of the shrine where her body is believed to rest. The decoration, ceramics and ceilings using mirrors are influenced by Iranian Safavid architecture.(Photo: Yasser el Bahadli).

Damascus: Sayyidah Ruqayya Mosque


Damascus: "Ruqayya" mosque, dedicated to Imam Hussein's daughter Sayiddah Ruqayya (photo: soggysyrial.com).

Mashhad (Iran): Imam Reza Shrine

Mashhad, Iran: The shrine was built on the site where Imam Reza died in 818 AD. He was the 8-th Shi'a Imam born in Medina in 765 AD. At the age of 51 he was surprisingly "appointed" by the Abbasid Caliph Mamun (a Sunni) to become his successor as the next caliph and gave him his daughter in marriage. Mamun's actions disturbed the rival Sunnis and several violent uprisings ensued. Reza's sudden death aroused suspicions among Shi'a who believed Mamun had poisoned him to avoid unrest. Millions visit Mashhad every year.  
Mazar e-Sharif  (Afghanistan): Imam Ali shrine


Afghanistan: In an a bizarre but interesting twist, some Muslims believe that the site of the tomb of Imam Ali  ibn abi Taleb is not in Najaf but in... the Afghan city of of  Mazar-e Sharif. This was supposedly "revealed" by the sixth Twelver Shi'a Imam Jaafar al-Sadiq, but is not shared by the majority Twelver Shi'a. Nonetheless, millions go there on Pilgrimage. It is also speculated under this fabulous Blue Mosque lies Zoroaster's tomb.


Krikor Tersakian, Rev. April 2014




Thursday, December 15, 2011

The Irish Great Famine: Official English Attitudes from London




An Gorta Mór or the Great Irish Famine: A Look from London

It took 150 years for a British Prime Minister to issue a statement on the Irish Potato Famine. Tony Blair's publicly regret and apology came in 1997 at a weekend festival in County Cork to commemorate the Great Famine, which claimed one million lives and caused the immigration of many more. A letter was read out from the Prime Minister in which he blamed "those who governed in London" at the time for the disaster.While the Irish had finally an apology, other victims of mass killings and genocides, such as the Armenians, are still waiting for such late but welcome honesty from the guilty nations.  Tony Blair's statement read: "The famine was a defining event in the history of Ireland and Britain.

It has left deep scars. That one million people should have died in what was then part of the richest and most powerful nation in the world is something that still causes pain as we reflect on it today. Those who governed in London at the time failed their people."
But what was the official attitude of the British Government toward the Irish during the Famine, and did prejudice play a role in that major human disaster? Was it possible to prevent the massive loss of life and the uprooting of millions if London had acted and felt differently about the victims?

A Famine cemetery from county Cork, Southern Ireland  (Photo via Moonhops87)
         The Irish Great Famine of 1845-1849 is also known as the “Great Hunger”, implying that there were many human factors and neglect involved in the calamity. The Famine is considered to be one of the major natural disasters of nineteenth century Europe, and certainly the major watershed calamity in Irish history. It was the result of the potato blight (Phytophtora infestans) that decimated the staple food of the Irish people for consecutive years. The resulting food shortage resulted in the death of an estimated million and a half through starvation and disease. Another million emigrated, the population of Ireland dropping from the pre-famine estimates of 8.5 million to barely 6 million by 1850’s.


Severity of the Great Famine was very uneven. Note that the Protestant dominated Ulster around Belfast as well as Dublin were almost famine free, while the heavily Catholic remote areas were devastated.
The British government’s response to the Famine has been a very contentious issue. Many different critical explanations have been formulated qualifying the official policies and actual relief efforts from “inadequate”, “inefficient” to “negligent”. In nationalist narratives,  An Gorta Mór is often described as actively or passively “genocidal” both in intent and mismanagement of the calamity. The British government’ relief efforts (or the lack of them) were shaped by various socio- economic principle of the period, such as Laissez-Faire and non interference in the forces of the market. The authorities were thought to be more concerned about the faith of landlords than the fate of the starving masses. These controversial policies were undoubtedly influenced also by the prevailing anti- Irish attitudes held by the authorities and shared by segments of the English public opinion. The letter written by Sir Charles Trevelyan, the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury  to R.H. Lord Monteagle in 1846 clearly states that firmly believed that the government was doing everything possible “short of transferring the famine from Ireland to England” and pointed the finger to the morbid habits and social evils of the Irish as roots of the Famine. Such views were supported by influential newspapers in London, such as The Times, echoing Trevelyan and disseminating opinions that the natural catastrophe and the resulting human tragedy were the direct results of the backwardness and primitive lifestyle of the Irish Catholics, and that the Famine could at least finally open the path to a more civilized lifestyle.


Sir Charles Trevelyan, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Famine: He was the official ''face'' of the British government's response during the Famine, but his actions and words were very controversial to say the least.
 It is important to stress that the pre famine Ireland was not the most peaceful of the places, nor was the Great Famine the only time there were widespread food shortages on the island. The period of 1845-49 however, was surely the most devastating, and came after a long period of great socio- political turmoil in modern Irish history: Plantations, appropriations of land, forced expulsions of the Catholics, the Penal Laws, the reforms pushed by the likes of Henry Grattan, the Relief act (1791-92), the rise of sectarianism, agrarian violence and the 1798 failed rising led by the United Irishmen. Ireland was in constant turmoil under British rule and the “glue sticking the Harp to the Crown” was problematic at best for both sides.
The political tensions of the late eighteenth century had culminated in the forced
Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland. The Irish parliament was abolished and Ireland sent representatives to Westminster. January 1, 1801 was therefore a date of enormous importance, when the Act of Union became operative after ‘bribery on a scale such as history has seldom witnessed.[1]
Therefore, with the forced Union  The economy of Ireland was assimilated into the economy of England, the Irish Parliament in Dublin disappeared and the Parliament at Westminster 


hence forward legislated for both countries. It was as if a marriage between England and 



Ireland had been celebrated, with the clauses of the Act of Union as the terms of the 



marriage settlement. [2]

The Act of Union, however, could not end centuries of animosity between the Irish and the colonial power from across the Irish Sea, and pre famine Ireland wasgenerally full of poverty and human suffering, especially in the western and southern counties with pockets of relative prosperity such as in rapidly industrializing Ulster (especially counties Down and Antrim). 


Potato Blight fungal disease: Phytophtera infestans
The decades following the Union had been ripe with political developments,especially the thorny issue of catholic emancipation and the Repeal movement. Major gains were achieved, but Ireland was not free and was directly ruled from Westminster and Whitehall. Therefore it is important to underline that during the Famine, counties Mayo, Kerry and Cork were as much part of Great Britain as Kent, Lancashire, Cheshire or Essex. But Ireland was a much different place than England, with a very large peasant cottiers class, a very uneven distribution of land and wealth, political and sectarian- based oppression and centuries of discrimination against the majority Catholics. Corn Laws, tillage and pasturage land management (graziers), the middlemen system, the absentee landlordism were all red flags that would have fatal consequences with the crop failures of 1945-49.


Evicted families ended up in last resort public "workhouses" where many just died.
 Pre-famine Ireland, however, offered favorable circumstances for a rapid population growth

that had reached a peak of 8.17 millions taken at a census in 1841.[3] It is estimated that 5.5 million or 66 percent of the Irish population was dependent on agriculture[4]which meant a very heavy reliance on potato and a inherent vulnerability to any crop failure. The potato was abundant and full of nourishment when complemented with milk, young couples were marrying earlier and the children were seen as an ‘insurance against destitution in old age’[5] as the Poor Laws came into effect just in 1838, offering a very basic form of charity and welfare to the poorest of the poor. Potato had become the staple food for many, a quasi monoculture that fed millions. Práta,was an easy vegetable to grow with minimal care in Lazy beds by lazy people, or so was the interpretation of many.
The British Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel was responsible for the creation of the Relief Commission in 1831 after many disastrous mini famines. Peel had an “expressed distaste for the jobbery or good-natured slackness of Irish public life, but had a businesslike concern for the condition of the country and its inhabitant”.[6]

The Duke of Wellington, an Irish born Protestant, in the summer of 1843 had declared that “Ireland was in no longer in a social state” thus pressuring the prime minister the formation of an exclusively protestant force to deal with the situation.[7]


Desperate digging for inedible potato tubers.
In 1843, the British government felt the strong need to intervene in Ireland and appointed

the Devon Commission to improve the fate of Irish peasants. The bill was opposed staunchly, amended and finally dropped. Other measures to help the poor peasants through government programs were also devised and opposed by those who thought that providing relief through public funds was unacceptable.[8] Various public works (new roads etc.) were implemented instead of money handouts, and most of these works were pointless infrastructure projects such as these roads built leading nowhere. Nevertheless, these projects were regarded more preferable than straight charity to a people judged lazy and

untrustworthy to the crown. The potato crop had already proven to be an unreliable crop and it was a known fact that a major failure would be serious enough for England but for Ireland it would be a disaster.[9] When the very alarming news were confirmed that the crop had indeed failed, the British government took steps to find a substitute, imported maize (an acquired taste), lift the duties on flour and oatmeal, regulate exports and open ports for free trade in food.[10] It is therefore obvious that the poor Irish were not masters of their own destiny, and the blame of the decimation of their communities during the Great Famine could not be solely placed on their shoulder.
This was not, however, the opinion of Charles Edward Trevelyan and his administration overseeing the Relief efforts during the Great famine. Trevelyan’s letter to Thomas Spring-Rice Lord Monteagle, is a good indicator of his conservative policies and dubious attitudes. He writes that the relief efforts of his majesty’s government were adequate in insofar as not transfer the “famine from Ireland to England”, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands were starving as he wrote. He reiterated his firm belief in laissez faire, non interventionist and pro-business policies, even in face of the calamity worsening by the day:
  The institution of the business of society, it falls to the share of the government to protect the  merchant and the agriculturalist in free exercise of their respective employments, but not itself to carry on those employments, and the conditions of a community depends upon the result of the efforts which each member of it makes in his private and individual capacity.[11]   
Trevelyan further expressed his opposition to the expressed opinions that the government

should do more to help the country in crisis. He clearly stated his opposition to any direct government involvement in such affairs as the “sale of food in every part of Ireland” or “arranging with the tenants the terms on which the rent is to be adjusted”. Trevelyan did not support any micro management of the official response, and relief of the starving poor by public works came as “too little too late and also slow, inefficient and sometimes corrupt”[12] The conservative protectionist policies that had prevailed under Robert Peel were superseded by the Whig Liberal policies under Lord John Russell, Trevelyan remaining at the Treasury until 1859.Trevelyan had also expresses openly racist views about the Great Famine as a deserved punishment from God to a undeserving (Roman Catholic) people:   The judgment of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must    not be too much mitigated. …The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people.[13]


Eviction of a poor ''cottier'' class family by the local authorities on orders from the landlord. The results of such evictions were more misery, starvation, disease or emigration.
A very contentious issue during the Famine was the way the landlords were willing or rather refusing to cooperate with government devised relief schemes. Plans were proposed to improve the land, change the employment act and checking speculation in foodstuff to allow for a sustainable life for the poor cottiers. The government was adamant that the landlords show goodwill and do their fair share but the opposition from the landlords was overwhelmingly negative. Trevelyan’s correspondence with Lord Monteagle, an important landlord, was done within this context, as the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury felt strongly that the landlords “failed to fulfill their obligation”.  [14]

However, the government’s anti landlord feelings were not necessarily the result of any sympathy for the victims of the hunger. It was rather the result of the firm belief that government intervention must be absolutely minimal and the relief efforts must be executed locally in the communities. Therefore, Trevelyan firmly believed that the Irish people were to blame for their own misfortunes, but that did not prevent him of being openly critical of the landlords and their lack of good will, purely based on economic principles.

Jeanie Johnston Famine Ship in Dublin...
The Times of London, the influential newspaper published an article on 22 September 1846, strongly supporting the non interventionist policies of the government and did not hide its racist attitude towards the Irish. The newspaper firmly rejected any notion that London was responsible. The British government was required to procure subsistence to the peasants but nothing more, ward off starvation, and its duty was to “stimulate others to give employment, not outbid them, or drive them from the labour market”.[15]

The Times went even further and put the blame squarely on the Irish peasants’ shoulders:

“The Irish peasant has tasted of famine and found that it was good”, hoping to get free manna from the sky. Moreover, the religion of the peasants (Roman Catholicism) holds that “Man shall not labour by the sweat of his brow”.

Quarantine stations at Partridge Island (Saint John, New Brunswick) and
at Grosse-Île (Québec, Quebec) were overwhelmed by the arrival of
thousands of poor and sick Irish immigrants. Of the nearly 100,000
immigrants who came through Grosse Île in 1847, the plague year, more
than half were Irish. At least 5,000 died on the island. Many perished
in the immigrant sheds that were their first temporary homes in their
new land. Grosse Île is now a National Historic Site commemorating the
Irish who landed there during the famine years.


The Times also stated that the Irish were used to laziness, accustomed to potatoes and leeks and that they must change their diet and develop a taste for grains and meat. The Irish must therefore evolve, be less Irish and resemble more the English and the Scots. Likewise,Trevelyan had written that he seeing a bright light shining in the distance through the dark cloud of the famine. Likewise, the Times considered the potato blight as a blessing that will perhaps open the opportunity to the semi savage Irish to become more civilized and avoid future punishments.





Skibbereen mass graves in County Cork (above) and Armenian Genocide memorial in Deir el Zor (Syrian Desert, where hundreds of thousands Armenians marched to their death in 1915): While the Irish have had their very late apology from the British Government's Tony Blair in 1997, the Armenians are still waiting for such a courageous leader to emerge in Ankara.
Trevelyan is depicted by some as a non compassionate racist who let the Irish people suffer and die, a short distance away from all powerful England. It is very likely, however, that he was a “well meaning but officious civil servants with Whig sympathies”[16] carrying zealous economic policies: The relief efforts under his administration proved to be mostly inefficient and too little too late in face of the huge wave of tragedy that was taking place despite all the food imports, soup kitchens and other private and public relief efforts.
The question remains if Trevelyan and the government would have been much more “flexible” in their economic orthodoxy if the Famine was ravaging the countryside in England, Scotland, Wales or evenUlster, rather than the impoverished Catholic Connaught or Kerry. On the other hand, the vindictive and openly racist attitudes such as the ones expressed by the Times were indicative of the period: Very little sympathy or comprehension of the historical facts, the social, economic and political segregation and

deprivation that the victims and their communities had been subjected to during

centuries of English colonial subjugation. 

© Krikor Tersakian, Montreal,  December, 2011

References:
[1] Cecil
Woodham-Smith, (New York : Harper & Row, publishers,  1962. p. 15
ibid,  p. 15
[3]  Cecil Woodham-Smith, (New York : Harper
& Row, publishers,  1962.  p.31
[4] R.Dudley Edwards and T.Desmond
Williams, The Great Famine, New York: Ny University press, 1957. p. 89
[5] Cecil
Woodham-Smith, p. 31.
[6] R.Dudley
Edwards and T.Desmond Williams, The Great Famine, New York: Ny University

press, 1957. p. 79.
[7] R.Dudley
Edwards and T.Desmond Williams,p.79,
[8] It is believed that Daniel O’Connell himself opposed some relief measures, as hefeared that any interventionist policies might dilute the power of the Catholic Church in a predominantly Catholic Ireland.
[9] Cecil Woodham-Smith, (New York :
Harper & Row, publishers,  1962. p.39.
[10] Cecil Woodham-Smith, (New
York : Harper & Row, publishers, 
1962. p. 41
 [11] Charles Trevelyan, Letter to Lord Monteagle. (Oct. 9, 1846) in Kissane (ed.), p 51.
[12]University College Cork: Charles Edward Trevelyan:             http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Charles_Edward_Trevelyan
[13] University College Cork: Charles
Edward Trevelyan:             http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Charles_Edward_Trevelyan
[14] R.Dudley
Edwards and T.Desmond Williams, The Great Famine, New York: Ny University press, 1957. p. 151.
[15] The Times.  Indolent
preference of the Irish for relief over labour. (Sept.22, 1846), in Gray

pages 154-155.
[16] R.Dudley
Edwards and T.Desmond Williams, The Great Famine, New York: Ny University

press, 1957. p. 215.