Uzbek media never even mentioned the fact that the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic had been established exactly 80 years ago. This article was turned down by a Tashkent newspaper as unfit for publication. "Do you know what its publication will mean for us?" chief editor asked. He nodded in the direction of Islam Karimov's portrait on the wall and added, "As far as he is concerned, the country has existed for only 13 years. There was nothing here before that - no country, no republic..."

Uzbekistan is 80 years

Uzbekistan was established 80 years ago. The Uzbek ethnic state in its present borders appeared after ethnic delimitation of Turkestan, initiated and conducted by the Communist Party. This is how it happened.

Politburo of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) passed resolution "On ethnic delimitation of Central Asian republics" in June 1924. A propagandistic campaign was mounted and some practical matters were tackled.

On October 11, 1924, Politburo of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) ordered ethnic delimitation of Central Asia and endorsed the plan of economic delimitation and distribution of state assets and capitals among new republics and regions.

On October 14, 1924, the 2nd meeting of the All-Union Central Executive Committee of the USSR endorsed resolution of the Turkestan Central Executive Committee on ethnic delimitation with certain amendments. The Tajik Autonomous Region was to be transformed into the Tajik Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic within the framework of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic.

On October 27, 1924, the 2nd meeting of the All-Union Central Executive Committee of the USSR backed requests from the Turkestan Central Executive Committee, the 5th All-Khorezm and the 5th All-Bukhara kurultais [Soviets] on ethnic delimitation and establishment of new soviet socialist republics and regions. This is the date of official establishment of Uzbekistan. All resolutions passed, the period of practical steps began. Turkestan, Bukhara, and Khorezm soviet republics became history, replaced with the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic, Tajik Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic within the framework of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, Karakyrgyz (Kyrgyz) Autonomous Region within the framework of the RSFSR, and Karakalpak Autonomous Region within the framework of the Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.

Kazakh-populated districts of Turkestan became the Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. The Tajik Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was transformed into a republic in 1929 and became a part of the Soviet Union. The Kyrgyz Autonomous Region was transformed into the Kyrgyz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in 1926. In 1932, the Karakalpak Region became the Karakalpak Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic within the framework of the RSFSR (and within the framework of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic in 1936). The Kazakh and Kyrgyz autonomous soviet socialist republics became republics of the Soviet Union in 1936.

The 1st Congress of Soviets of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic took place in Bukhara in February 1925. It passed "Declaration on establishment of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic".

***

Tashkent correspondent of Ferghana.Ru tried to discover the attitude of citizens of Uzbekistan towards the 80th anniversary and towards the fact that its very mention was banned.

Question: Why do you think the event is not even mentioned?

Shukhrat, student: Probably because nobody needs it. Everyone has problems of his own. That's ancient history. On the other hand, it would have been proper to at least mention it. History is history after all. It's better to know a lot...

"Farkhad", book seller: I do not know. It was a Soviet Uzbekistan then. It is not valued anymore, I'd say. We all remember how November 7 was celebrated in the past.

Erkin, a passer-by (45 years or so): That was long ago. It does not count anymore... [with a laugh]

Gafur, a prosperous man: We did not have any history before 1991. We live day by day now. There are no more bread lines, like in the Soviet Union. Life is changing...

Tamara Vasilievna, teacher (53 years): The event and the date are forgotten. The young do not know anything about it. It is being done by the men at the top. Everybody knows that between the 1930's and the 1990's it was a period when the state was all right and when every citizen was all right. Ethnic matters were not a a problem they became after that.

A girl: I do not think about it at all. [In response to the question of what she thinks.]

Arthur, tailor (41 year): I cannot find an answer to it. Soviet symbols and all that are banned, that's probably why. Because Soviet celebrations are abolished, because we have a different country, different system and ideology now. That's probably why the decision was made not to remind anybody about it. Just cutting out a part of the past. Still, a look into history books reveals a lot of interesting nuances and events.

The Bolsheviks are not bad because they gave us statehood. Perhaps, appearance of the Uzbek state was a pro, but what happened after was certainly a con. They - the Bolsheviks, that is - did a lot of good things and a lot of bad ones. Consider genocide of the Soviet people. Or the war - the one that is called World War II here, not the Great Patriotic War. How many died because of the mistakes made by the Bolsheviks and Comrade Stalin himself! Why is everyone afraid to speak up and express his or her opinion? Because on the genetic level they all are victims of 1937... Destruction of a great country was the only crime. Still, it is wrong to fail to make a distinction between actions of the Bolsheviks and accomplishments of the people. On the other hand, all our leaders are mostly Bolsheviks...

Question: Why do you think there is no mention anywhere of the fact that the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic was established 80 years ago?

"Akhmed", vendor: Well, there is nothing in the newspapers, and that is why nobody remembers. Had newspapers mentioned it, it would have been a different matter. I reckon that this is not permitted. I do not know... Nobody recalls anything anymore.

Question: Why do you think there is not a word on the matter in the media?

Tatiana Petrovna, teacher (47 years): It is not permitted. An easy guess, isn't it? They say that everything is fine and dandy in the country when there are serious problems facing us. Well, it will end in nothing good. I'm convinced that the media should highlight all of that.

Question: Why is the attitude towards the Bolsheviks so negative? After all, they gave Uzbekistan its first statehood. Not the ideal form, perhaps, but...

Answer: It happens again and again. History does not teach us anything. I would not call us fast learners. The Bolsheviks formed a lot of republics, not only Uzbekistan. There were both positive and negative aspects of it. These days, it is only negative ones that are emphasized. "We were forced...", "We were coerced regardless of our own opinion..." - that sort of thing. I believe that the republic as such only benefited...

Question: Why does Uzbekistan not celebrate it like it celebrates September 1 then?

Answer: Because of the factor of sovereignty and independence. Celebration of the date will imply unification, but all republics are sovereign states now. The date is not celebrated because it contradicts Independence Day. It is dependance vs sovereignty...

Tulkun, cabbie: Are you saying that it is the 80th anniversary of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic? It is not mentioned because we are a sovereign country now. I do not think that any hostility towards the Soviet Union is present here. I'd say that journalists are not encouraged to write about it. They are discouraged because the authorities do not want to remember. I'd say that we had a fine life then. Everything was all right. These days, however, an emphasis is made on the fact that we are an Uzbek country, you know. Even the language is Uzbek.

Question: Do you think the date should be celebrated?

Answer: Sure. This is a milestone after all. It's history whether you want it or not. A comparison of life then and now shows that we were all friendlier then. I mean, from the point of view of ethnic matters. It was better in the Soviet Union. I'm 40, and I do not remember any chauvinism then.

Dilyara, office worker (25 years): It is not mentioned nowadays because the Soviet Union collapsed. Someone is probably out to forget everything and start writing history on a blank page. Hence the attempts to distort history, to say that Communists and the Soviet Union were bad and that whatever is happening nowadays is great. They do not want any comparisons because these comparisons do not paint them white, you know.

Kamil Dzhurayev, engineer (40 years): It's a political matter. The same thing is happening everywhere - in the Baltic states and in all other post-Soviet republic. Are we supposed to mention it all alone or what? Communist revolution was brought in from without - this is what is called export of revolution. The revolution was tough. Budenny even ordered all boys of 8 years and older exterminated in all kishlaks. In any case, this is a collision between the West and the East. The East is different. All these rebellions, including Russian ones, were never typical of the East. Hence the logical question: why bother recalling it? This is an attempt to forget this hard period. Local culture was taken apart, perhaps, even destroyed altogether. Hence the natural disinclination to describe these events. As the Uzbek proverb goes, "When you meet your ex-wife, go to the other side of the street." That is why there is nothing in the media. Do not try to apply Western standards to us.

Said Abdurakhmanov, journalist: I'd say that this is the so called ostrich policy: I do not see anyone and therefore no one sees me. Even the Soviet Union - I mean the term itself - was banned in the first years of sovereignty. As though we had never had anything like that in our history, you know. It is somewhat easier nowadays, probably because there was all this criticism of the authorities that it was a foolish thing to do. Well, the authorities must have given it a thought. It is not the national leaders who deny and denounce all of that. It is administrators who fear that if their subordinates say something, they may find themselves in trouble. I mean, top brass do not have anything to fear because they have these administrators, like insulation, between themselves and the people. Why the event is not celebrated? It's simple. Nobody likes rivals. This event is of the magnitude of another one, the one we celebrate on September 1. They are equal in importance but polar in the meaning.

Firuza, office worker: If you ask me, everything associated with the Soviet era is history now. For some reason, our rulers are apprehensive of the words "Soviet", "Communism", "Socialism", and everything associated with this era is not to be mentioned. Now that Uzbekistan is a sovereign country, everything that was done in that period is... invalidated or something. It allegedly fades against the background of our latest accomplishments. I think, however, that the negative outperformed the positive in 13 years of sovereignty. Everybody - even peasants - knows that things were better in the Soviet era. Even the laws promoted interests of the people. Words like "honor" and "conscience" did not scare anybody then. These days, however, every toddler knows that there is no honor or conscience anymore. We live in a horrible system in a corrupt country that calls itself independent and democratic.

Karim Yegubayev, teacher of philosophy at a theological seminary: I do not think that historians have begun their debates yet. There is the official point of view, there is the Moscow point of view i.e. that of the classic Russian studies of the East. Nothing is mentioned because official historiography does not associate the beginning of national statehood with this date. It is associated with the era of Timur or some even more ancient period. I'd say that history is a risky science in any case, that it is inseparable from political interests, and that any ethnic state idea is a myth to some extent. I'd even call it certain hatred of one's own past. It is common knowledge after all that our rulers are functionaries of that party.

Rustam, businessman (37 years): Our ruling elite has its own starting point to count from. Statehood begins the moment sovereignty is obtained, as far as the elite is concerned. In fact, the event was not celebrated even in the Soviet Union, much less now. I do not give a damn. I do not think that any statehood was established that day. Vassal pseudo-states were formed then. I do not think that the government of Uzbekistan wielded any real power because all decisions were made in the center. We did not even identify ourselves as citizens of Uzbekistan, we viewed ourselves as citizens of the Soviet Union and carried passports of the USSR. I'm not trying to evaluate the existing regime. I'm merely saying that this country was formed on September 1, 1991, and that the one that was known as the Soviet Union is history now, and that our being citizens of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic was but a minor technicality. I think that most citizens do not even know what October 27, 1924, means (and not because of the authorities, by the way). After all, the event was not celebrated even in the Soviet Union.

Shukhrat Sheikhov, engineer (33 years): Well, it's like history between 1913 and 1991 does not exist. That's the state of affairs now. Everywhere - in newspapers or TV programs - this period, is mentioned in passing if at all. And this period is inevitably called years of colonialism. As I see it, our powers-that-be - the president and his inner circle (all of them former communists) - do not want to remember it because they themselves used to be communists and want to forget it. Besides, they do not want to remember because the people is worse off now than in the last years of the Soviet Union. The powers-that-be do not want comparisons. Hence the determination to forget the past as soon as possible - with the implication that the existing regime is better.

The ruling circles have abandoned the ideas of Bolshevism and Communism and are trying to create a new national ideology now. All the same, they know, they feel that Bolshevik and Communists ideas are closer to the people. On the other hand, we have central streets in Tashkent named after communists Rashidov and Kunayev. That's a clear collision. As for the ethnic split and establishment of ethnic republics, there are pros and cons here because neither Uzbeks nor Kazakhs had their own states before that. That's a con. But the way everything was organized - regardless of where Uzbeks were living and where Kazakhs were - it was wrong. That's particularly true of Kazakhstan. Take northern Kazakhstan for example. It is populated by Europeans. The territories Kazakhs passed once a year en route to some destination were given over to them. Nobody cared that there were Russians and Ukrainian there too.

Inna Akkermantseva, advertisement specialist: Probably because Uzbekistan as it is nowadays views the Soviet Union as something best laid to ashes. That is why there are no mentions of the event - or of Uzbekistan's participation in the Great Patriotic War. History books were revised with the current attitude towards those event taken into account. Actually, even in the Soviet era there were certain doubts in Uzbekistan concerning existence of the state of Uzbekistan, you know, because there is the opinion that Uzbeks as a nation never existed in the first place.

I believe that official newspapers should have highlighted the event, but 80 years is not a good round figure. Perhaps, something will change yet before the 100th anniversary comes. Consider Khamza and our memory. That's something horrible we did to it and to him. Khamza's own people betrayed him twice - once when he was alive, and after his death. Text-book are being written anew to suit certain circles' purposes... But it was an university that was established here, and its professors were among the best in the country. Moreover, they came here to teach, not to make money. Well, it cannot be denied that the university was established by Lenin's decree no matter how the establishment is called nowadays.

Munira, journalist (45 years): Adolat party leader recently announced, "Rustam Kasymdzhanov is a world champion. When we were a part of the Soviet Union, it would have been referred to as a Russian accomplishment. No more. Everybody knows us now. Kasymdzhanov became a champion because we are an independent country now, he is our accomplishment. We brought him up." I could hardly stifle a laugh. Sure, the whole world will admit now that Uzbekistan is a great power since it has its own chess champion.

All of that is initiated by our powers-that-be. They claim that the Soviet regime commandeered everything from us, that all accomplishments and achievements associated with Uzbekistan were ascribed to Russia. All achievements, economic ones included, were ascribed to Russia and the people was therefore poor... but we all know perfectly well that this is not it. I think that all these negative factors should be ascribed to the fact that we deliberately put a distance between us and Russia and all other countries. All alone, no country can hope to accomplish anything.

Everything associated with that era is deliberately retouched nowadays. Here is an example. We have a theater named after Khamza. It was named after Khamza, that is... If I'm not mistaken, the name was changed 3 year ago. It is the National Theater of Drama now. The indignant are told that this is how things should be because Khamza is a representative of the Soviet era. In other words, all history began 13 years ago. Why is the Great Patriotic War never mentioned as such? God forbid some newspaper calls it that. It is officially known as World War II now. All of that are links in a chain. History is being written from a new page... A blank page. It is a grave mistake to forget that when you take a gunshot at history, it retaliates with a cannonball. Had the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic never been established, there would have been no Uzbekistan now. The Bolsheviks are denigrated now, but they established Uzbekistan as a republic, a country, a state.

Vyacheslav Akhunov, poet, prosaic, and artist: As far as the powers-that-be are concerned, the republic was established in 1991. Saying that it was established 80 years ago means a reference to its first leader Yuldash Akhunbabayev. It means recognition of legitimacy of the republic that existed before disintegration of the Soviet Union and recognition of the fact that it had its own symbols - flag, emblem, etc. Why is that not recognized? That's clear. As far as our leaders are concerned, freedom was won. Who headed this liberation struggle? Our president, of course. A party functionary himself, first secretary of the republican Communist Party, he was a freedom fighter. This is what we are told. It was through his wisdom that we won our freedom called sovereignty and forgot what ozodlik (freedom) was. In fact, this is banal tampering with history in an attempt to show how great a president we have. Great in everything, of course. That's typical, that's something we remember from the Communist past when the term "state coup" was replaced with "revolution". I mean that freedom that is given as a gift is never valued, and we know that we were given this freedom as a gift during Yeltsin's reign. We did not have to fight for it. Because there was never any opposition in society - intellectual, political, any - in the 1970's and 1960's. I remember how Uzbek writers signed a letter condemning Solzhenitsyn, how Bernara Kariyeva was tearing the mike from Andrei Sakharov's hand at the last congress of people's deputies. And of course, I will never forget the referendum where we all voted for the USSR...

Andrei Kudryashov, writer and publicist: It's just that Uzbekistan was given independence as a gift. It obtained independence when the Soviet Union collapsed and not because it had fought or strived for it. That is why it implied no freedom. The state obtained sovereignty but the same political elite retained all power. Why would it emphasize its own true nature?

As for establishment of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, according to the accepted doctrine it was not the first form of statehood. Timur's empire was the first.

Ravil, journalist (34 years): As far as we are concerned, there was no history at all between 1917 and 1991. Ideologists of mustakillik [sovereignty, independence] paint the period black, calling it years of colonialism and neglecting all positive things. These neo-historians should remember, however, that it was the ethnic delimitation that provided republics with the impetus, that it is to this delimitation that they owe the heyday of ethnic language and culture - not to mention development of industry, social sphere, etc. The regime is doing its best to forget this period, bring up a new generation that will regard all history of modern Uzbekistan as a steady development of the Uzbek people beginning from Timur's era. It is trying to present all of history as a constant struggle for independence. To quote Edvard Radzinsky, history is politics directed in the past.

Ethnic delimitation in 1924 ruined the delicate structure of population of the then Turkestan. All ethnic groups were mixed then, it was impossible to assemble them within a single territory. Some peoples gained something therefore, others lost something. Pan-Turkish ideas became popular in the 1920's and Turkish-speaking nations became ethnic republics. Tajiks, a nation with the wealthiest cultural and historic traditions, found themselves ousted from the process. When the Tajik Samarkand and Bukhara were coerced into becoming Uzbek, there were some winners and losers too. Special attention was paid to the interests of Uzbeks. The idea to offer an ethnic republic to every people was a bait used by the Bolsheviks in attracting the peoples of Turkestan. Sure, the borders were absolutely artificial but the Bolsheviks and their empire did enable ethnic intelligentsias and cultures to develop.

Question: Why is the event not celebrated then?

Answer: The authorities probably think that the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic did not have trappings of its own statehood. There were only formal ones - the state emblem or the clause of the Constitution of the USSR on the possibility of withdrawal from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was an unitary state, we all know it.

Question: Do you think we should recognize non-ideological content of the ethnic delimitation?

Answer: It was a wholly ideological decision. I mean the delimitation. Formal right of self-determination for every people is but a bait. In Kazakhstan, for example, ideologists of independent Kazakhstan do not ignore the Soviet era. They incorporated it in the history of the country without condemning Russia. Kazakhstan celebrates the Republic Day on October 25. Kazakhs view their history as a chain of events - sometimes dramatic and sometimes important - but they do not omit this period altogether.