Was the Bab an agent of the Russians or British?

The Bab has often been accused by Iranians of having been both an agent of Russian imperalism as well as British colonialism, and that his "religion" was nothing more than a disguised political scheme devised to deceive and divide the masses of Shiite faithful. In this conspiracy theory, the Bab's scheme would allow his Western masters to consolidate their power over their respective spheres of influence in Persia. So which power did he serve? The answer is neither. The claims asserted by these Iranian polemicists that try and prove either side are complete lies for which there is no support in recorded history.

Let's examine the Russian rumor first. The idea of the Bab's loyalty to Russia stems from a fake memoir of prince Dmitri Ivanovich Dolgorukov (known to Iranians as Dolgoruki), who served as the ambassador to Tehran from 1846 to 1854, first published in Mashhad in 1943. The authorship of this memoir is naturally attributed to Dolgorukov but was in reality done by an Iranian—some say a mullah. The first question that arises regarding this memoir is why a Russian would write his memoirs in Persian, a language Dolgorukov was not very good at. If he first wrote it in Russian and someone translated it into Persian, where is the Russian original, which has never been found or even mentioned anywhere!

The fact that this memoir was not written by Dolgorukov is apparent from its multiple historical errors, perhaps most embarrassingly including the fact that the author didn't even get the names of previous Russian czars right. The memoir has since been declared a forgery by top-notch Iranian scholars of the day, such as Abbas Iqbal Ashtiani, Mujtaba Minavi, and even antagonists of the Baha'i Faith like Ahmad Kasravi.

The memoir mentions the Bab and the Babi religion in such a way that it leaves the reader to believe that Dolgorukov "found" the Bab, took advantage of him, and told him to make claims to revelation. It cites many historical anecdotes that are not recorded anywhere outside of the memoir itself and, indeed, run counter to the narratives and almanacs written during the ministry of Dolgorukov and the Bab. I will mention only the most glaring errors here:

• The memoir claims that Dolgorukov came to Persia in 1834 as a translator for the Russian embassy. However, it is documented in various yearbooks and almanacs, such as the Almanach de Gotha, that from 1832-1837, Dolgorukov was actually the Secretary of Russian Legation in the Hague, Netherlands. He did not arrive at his post in Persia until January 1846, two years after the Bab had declared his mission.
  
  
• The memoir states that Dolgorukov attended the classes of Siyyid Kazim Rashti in the early 1840s in Karbala, where he first came into contact with the Bab. As already noted, Dolgorukov was not in Persia at that time. Also, Siyyid Kazim had in fact died three years prior to Dolgorukov's arrival to Persia in 1846! In addition, there is no historical record of Dolgorukov ever traveling to Karbala.
  
  
• According to the memoir, many of the writings of the Bab were actually written by Dolgorukov and sent to the Bab! Others were written by the Bab but Dolgorukov later corrected any errors he had made! The problem with this story is that Dolgorukov was not even aware of the Bab's claims until 1847 (source: Dolgorukov to Seniavin No. 66, 17 Sept. 1852 OS (29 Sept. NS): Dossier No. 158, Tihran 1852, p. 608.), roughly the same time when the Bab was sent to the fortress of Maku. Except for a brief trial in Tabriz in July 1848, the Bab remained incarcerated for the next three years up until his execution on July 9th, 1850. Thus, no dialogue or relationships between him and Dolgorukov would have been possible at any time.

These are just a few examples that prove the Dolgorukov memoir to be nothing more than a poorly-crafted hoax, and the idea of the Bab being an agent of the Russians nothing more than a fanciful story.

Now let's move on to the British rumor. The allegation of the Bab's being a British agent is slightly different in nature but was made roughly around the same time. Its origin lies in the magnum opus of Fereydoon Adamiyyat, a scholar of the Persian Constitutional Revolution: Amir Kabir va Iran, published in 1944. This is a biography of Amir Kabir, the prime minister of Persia from 1848-1851 who is hailed as a national hero. He ordered the execution of the Bab in 1850.

On pages 243-244 of this biography, Adamiyyat claimed that the Bab's first disciple, Mulla Husayn, was actually a British agent recruited by Arthur Conolly (1807-1842), a British intelligence officer, explorer, and writer. Adamiyyat had noted that the evidence for his accusation appeared in Conolly's book Journey to the North of India Overland from England through Russia, Persia, and Affghaunistaun, which pointed to a meeting between Mulla Husayn and Conolly in 1830 during Conolly’s travel through Khurasan. According to Adamiyyat, it was Mulla Husayn who, acting in the British interest, pushed the Bab to put forward his claims. The alleged meeting in fact never took place. In 1830, Mulla Husayn was a teenager of 17 and the Bab was a child of 11. Furthermore, Conolly himself died at the young age of 35, two years before the Bab had even made his claims public.

When a Professor Mujtaba Minuvi confronted Adamiyyat with a copy of Conolly’s book and asked for any reference to Mulla Husayn or the Bab in the book, Adamiyyat was forced to admit the forgery. He removed the fabrication in subsequent editions of his book. Adamiyyat was widely regarded as one of the premier historians of the 20th century in Iran. This begs the question why an intellectual of his stature would fabricate such a lie. Either he didn't think he would get caught or he had such deep-seated hatred towards the Baha'is that he was willing to take a chance with his reputation.

Of course, forgeries and fabrications about the Bab didn’t end with the genesis of Faith but continued with half-truths and sheer lies regarding his teaching. Even the episodes regarding his miraculous execution were distorted in the hope of lessening his impact. But that's another blog entry. For now, see this fanciful scene of the execution of the Bab by a Russian artist. Those familiar with accounts of the Bab's execution will immediately notice this as a forgery. Why? According to both Baha'i and non-Baha'i sources, the Bab was executed with one of his companions—Mirza Muhammad Ali Zunuzi, known as Anis. In this imaginary painting, there's no trace of the companion!