In mid-May, an old, deep-rooted debate resurfaced during a meeting of the Russian-Kyrgyz Expert Advisory Council on History. Russian scholars present, after reviewing Kyrgyz history textbooks for grades 8, 9, and 10, complained about the depiction of the Soviet Union and the use of the term “colonialism” in reference to both the Russian Empire and the USSR that followed it.
“Using the term ‘colonialism’ is a fashion statement,” said Andrei Bykov, a researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Azattyk. “The younger generation perceives this term emotionally, because it has a negative connotation. If we replace ‘colonialism’ or ‘colonial policy’ with ‘administration’ and ‘administrative measures’, then the negative connotation will no longer exist.”
It is not only “the younger generation” who perceive the term “colonialism” with emotion. Since the creation of the Russian Empire incursions into Central Asia In the 19th century and throughout Soviet rule over the region, Moscow grappled with unease with the term “colonialism.”
“There is a very long tradition of the Russians thinking that their empire was completely different from that of the British,” Adeeb Khalid, a professor of Asian studies and history at Carleton College, told the Diplomat. “The Soviets saw themselves as revolutionary, not imperialist, and that they were in fact helping the people of Central Asia overcome the legacy of colonialism. »
But according to him, “the Russian Empire and the British Empire were very similar. The Soviet Union was a bit, it was something else.”
It’s a debate that historians continue to have. The past may be static, but history – our collective understanding of the past – is constantly changing. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, there has been a surge in academic and public discourse and debate about colonialism in Central Asia during the Soviet period. decolonization in the modern era.
Botakoz Kassymbekova, professor of Eastern European history at the University of Zurich and a leading figure in decolonization in Central Asia, told The Diplomat that “Soviet ideology presented colonialism as a capitalist enterprise. Russian colonialism was state-led, not business-led, but it was, and still is, colonialism.”
“There are elements of economic exploitation in Central Asia that look a lot like colonial exploitation,” Khalid said, echoing points made by Kyrgyz historians in Moscow, pushing back against demands from their Russian colleagues. There are other elements of Soviet rule in Central Asia – such as the lack of independence and resettlement policies – that resemble most standard definitions of colonialism.
“But the Soviet state also mobilized its population in a way that colonial empires never did,” Khalid added. “You can really get to the heart of this great academic debate. »
“The comparison is not only justified but necessary,” Kassymbekova told The Diplomat. “The Russian state and academia deny their colonial past because the Soviet regime presents itself as anti-colonial and this is something the current regime inherited from the Soviet state. »
Above this academic debate lies a universal reality.
“Today – and this applies to all post-Soviet states and not just post-Soviet states – history and politics are very deeply intertwined,” Khalid said.
This is particularly striking where official histories dominate narratives, where open debate is more restricted, and where governmental legitimacy is anchored in national historical metaphors. If legitimacy is tied to history, then exactly how that history is interpreted matters beyond conference rooms full of historians.
“Why are Russians today so upset that the Soviet Union could be considered colonial? It has to do, I suppose, with Russian national and political identity today, rather than the past,” Khalid explained.
“[Russia] needs a good imperial history to legitimize its current colonial violence,” Kassymbekova added, referring to the war in Ukraine.
By reimagining its own past to meet its present needs, contemporary Russia has rehabilitated the Russian Empire and cherry-picked the history of the Soviet Union to present itself as a unique, unbroken great power. If a nuanced discussion of history challenges this notion, Moscow seeks to silence it.
At the same time, as the debate at the recent meeting of the Russian-Kyrgyz Expert Advisory Council on History demonstrated, Kyrgyz historians have a voice in this conversation that cannot be ignored. Even if they were diplomatic, the Kyrgyz historians rebuffed on the idea of abandoning certain terms to meet political demands.
Kyrgyz historian and author of an 8th grade textbook, Tynchtykbek Chorotegin, told Azattyk: “Of course, this is political pressure. It has both political and ideological significance. Therefore, we must reject it; it is contrary to our sovereignty.”
Write in Moscow timeErica Marat – who written for Le Diplomate on Decolonization in Central Asia – noted that “Russian historians seem detached from the intense debates over the legacy of Russian occupation currently taking place in Central Asia, and unable to secure loyalty to Russian culture from the region’s academic communities.”
Ultimately, it is up to Kyrgyzstan to decide whether Kyrgyz textbooks will use the term “colonialism” or seek to fully contextualize the Soviet period – incorporating both its crimes and its triumphs.
“As the famous Kyrgyz writer Chingiz Aitmatov wrote, colonization begins with erasing the memory of the colonized,” Kassymbekova told The Diplomat, saying it is important for Kyrgyzstan to define its own history.
Aitmatov’s multi-layered 1980 novel, “The Day Lasts Over a Hundred Years,” addresses, among other themes, questions of modernity and memory. It contains a fictional folk tale about men turned into mindless slaves – mankurt – who do not recognize their name, family or tribe. Although the book was written during the Soviet period, and not necessarily as a critique of the Soviet Union itself, Aïtmatov’s word nevertheless provide a framework for understanding the interplay between memory, history and meaning in Central Asia.
“People without a past, without memory, without history are weak, disoriented, helpless and obedient,” Kassymbekova told The Diplomat. “Having a story that one studies and interprets is a form of action; interpretation is a form of freedom, the freedom to think, to know, to understand and eventually to act. »