Sattari people
Sattari people (Pardarian: مردم ستاری, tr. Mārdom-e Sattāri; Rahelian أهل الستاري, tr. Nās al'Sattari) or Citizens of the Union (Pardarian: شهروندان اتحادیه, tr. Šahrvand-ân-ye Ettehad; Rahelian: مُوَاطِنُون الاتحاد, tr. Muwāṭinūn al-Ittiḥād) is the official umbrella demonym (politonym) for the population of the Union of Zorasani Irfanic Republics. It exists in parallel to the more popular and common Zorasani. The term was officially adopted on the 1 January 1980 with Zorasani unification and is use primarily in official state documents and nomenclature.
Origin
The origins of term are widely disputed among historians as prior to its formal adoption in 1980, the Pan-Zorasanist term varied between "Zorasani" and the individual demonyms for the constituent parts of the pre-defined state. According to government records, the term Sattari as a politonym was devised as a temporary "unifying term for the peoples of the Union.” These documents further stated, that “until such time the universal identification of the citizenry is that of Zorasani, we must beat back the continued ignorant terms Pardarian, Rahelian and such, proclaiming the peoples of the Union, the people of Sattari is therefore key.”
Further to the government rationale, was the significant return of the Sattari personality cult. In celebration of unification, the new government contracted the construction of hundreds of monuments dedicated to him, songs, poems and a printed media campaign, leading some to conclude that the major driving force behind the adoption of Sattari as a politonym was part of the wider resurrection of the cult.
Between 1980 and 1990, the term Sattari was used in all official documentation, including the census. As the Union does not recognise ethnicity, during this period, the population was forced in part to fully identify as Sattari, from 1990 onward, the census began to include the option of Zorasani, which over the preceding decades grew in popularity. By the 2012 census, 98% of citizens identified as Zorasani over Sattari, though the term continues to be used in government documents and affairs.
According to Said Abdullah-Ali, a prominent historian on post-unification Zorasani history, “the decision to introduce the identifier ‘Sattari’ over ‘Zorasani’ after 1980 was in many ways ingenious. The state knew that opposition to unification existed among the “Rahelian” and other minorities, so by introducing something complete different, yet all-encompassing while the Zorasani identity was fostered and nurtured, ensured that the Pardarian and Rahelian and so on, were bound together in equal measure.”
Today, the term is used interchangeably with Zorasani in everyday life.
Nationality and ethnicity in Zorasan
Throughout its post-unification history, Zorasan has confronted the issue of nationality and ethnicity in a manner that has not changed in over 40 years. Prior to unification, the Sattarist approach to these two issues was to dismiss them outright. Ethnicity and nationality according to Sattarist thought is a Euclean product, rooted in racialism, to divide and conquer states into submission and subservience. In many ways, the rejection of ethnicity by the Sattarists was rooted in the socialist rejection of such as a capitalist-bourgeois construct, even if the Sattarist approach is inherently nationalist in nature.
From the end of the Pardarian Civil War in 1950, through to 1980, the Sattarist regime in the Union of Khazestan and Pardaran, ceaselessly attacked the notion of “nations” and “separate peoples” within the borders of Zorasan. It outright rejected the concept of Rahelia, describing the region as just a “geographical expression that provides no basis for an independent identity or existence.” Historians also note that the relative success of the post-unification period was that as Rahelians saw any nascent “Rahelian identity” crushed, they could see the same for the Pardarian, Kexri, Togoti etc. The UKP and subsequently the UZIR, actively refurnished national history, describing every pre-colonial state as “Zorasani”, rather than Pardarian, despite the latter’s dominant role for millennia. Textbooks, publications, thesis, museum exhibitions have all since described the Pardarian-led classical era empires, and post-Heavenly Dominion dynasties as Zorasani, going as far as either fabricate contributions or roles of Rahelians (primarily), or greatly enhancing them.
As for the political governance of the Union, commentators and historians have noted that despite seeking to eradicate the individual ethnic-national identities of its constituent peoples, rarely did it attempt to “Padarianise” state-governments, as many critics and opponents of unification claim. As Abdullah-Ali wrote, “there was never a fear of the Rahelian governing themselves in relation to the post-unification Union Republics, for the Union adopted a bizarre approach of equalising the Pardarian and Rahelian, while simultaneously stating these very things did not exist. There were indeed prominent Padarians who urged for such a policy, but it has never materialised.”
This equalisation is best seen in the adoption of both languages as that of the state. Children are taught both simultaneously and are encouraged to use both when in the classroom. Togoti is permitted, but Togoti children likewise are taught Pasdani and Rahelian and taught to use it in public.
Abdullah-Ali further described the entire post-unification policy of “establishing a mutually dependent relationship between the Pardarian and Rahelian, insofar that the two peoples, one the original master and the other, the opponent of unification would have the most to lose from the Union’s disintegration.”
Shireen Zakrizadeh, a prominent exile-critic of the Union described the approach to nationality and ethnicity as “perpetual cultural genocide.” She wrote in 2010, “many ask why the UZIR succeeded in establishing a multi-ethnic nation with one singular identity, the key was the utter demolition of every culture, history and tradition in equal measure. When the Pardarian and Rahelian see their existence rewritten at the same time, you destroy the accusation of Pardarianisation and with that, resentment.”
It is official policy of the UZIR government to immediately confront and reject references to Pardaran, Rahelia, Togotistan or Kexristan as nations or states. When referring to Rahelia, the UZIR government and media establishment refer to it as Northern Coius, Kexristan as Ninevah and Togotistan as the Steppe Region. Pardaran is only referenced when discussing the Union Republic.