Freedom on the Horizon
Half a Millennium of Religious Intolerance:
Russian-Muslim Conflicts and Analysis
By Zaman S. Stanizai
Political Editor, Asian Affairs –The Minaret
"Tolerance for ambiguity is a prerequisite for being creative, with it one can savor the vibrational blurrings of life's paradoxes, without it reality is a still-life, still-borne." — Anonymous
The people in the heartland of Asia have been victims of their geographic environment throughout history, a fate they share with many within the Russian Federation as well as some in the former Soviet republics. Within the Russian domain, the problem stems from the tremendous amount of systemic integration, forced cultural assimilation, lingering bureaucratic centralization, devastating agricultural and industrial collectivization, failed economic planning, and planned economic dependencies. These socio-political schemes that have conveniently been referred to as Russification, Sovietization, and even modernization have adversely affected the lives of the Muslim population more than others primarily due to religious intolerance. In addition to the prevailing milieu of religious, cultural and racial intolerance the recent debacle of the political system poses a threat of yet another genre. Immensely important is the state-initiated gerrymandering that threatens ethnic conflicts and could inevitably lead to political fallout of devastating consequences.
The prevalent state of affairs where ethnic Slaves, Russians in particular have political and military dominance receive preferential treatment in the job market, and enjoy privileged life style, is an impediment toward social integration within the Russian Federation. In light of these circumstances the mere notion of remedial suggestions for a positive change borders on wishful thinking.
If the experience of other empires in a similar phase of disintegration is any indication of prophecies on the future of the once Soviet/Russian empire, it is imperative upon those at the helm of power in Kremlin to forge ahead and undo the deeds that lead to the colossal failure in social engineering in modern times.
The disintegration of the Warsaw Pact and that of the Soviet Union were the first two steps, which must inevitably be complemented by the disintegration of the Russian Federation, which still include a long list of nations. These nations and the Russians are each a burden for the other and an impediment for the pursuit of happiness.
Russia must become a nation, instead of an empire; and a major prerequisite for nationhood is ethnic homogeneity, political cohesion, and social integration among its populace. Such a nation can be economically more manageable, politically better led, and economically better off. The planning of such an endeavor calls for Russia to shed the feathers of the imperial peacock. Russia must become a smaller bird instead of the gruesome overweight polar bear it once was. "Small is better," the popular business motto of modern times, has a great deal of applicability and practicability in the political management of a modern state. Life in the slow lane along with the community of nations necessitates such a fundamental change.
Some experts believe that in order to preserve the indivisibility of the Russian state, no borders should be changed, no independence be granted, and no Balkanization of the Russian Federation be permitted. These words are music to the ears of Russians ultra-nationalists and Russian chauvinists with missionary zeal and settler mentality; however, delaying the disintegration of the Russian empire is like swimming against the tide of time. Efforts aimed at preventing the disintegration from running its full course are an anomaly to the dictates of history.
The British, Ottoman, and French empires were able to retain homogeneous nuclei of their empires and mold them into new nations only after facing the inevitable reality of the collapse of their empires. Along that line Russia's fate has been sealed by the paradoxical dictum of time honored tradition of history: All that rise are doomed to fall -- a predicament for power contenders at the helm in Moscow is the realization of this truth and the understanding that any one who is determined to sail the Russian ship through the troubled waters of the turbulent sea of disintegration, must do so cautiously and carefully take notice of the sign that reads: Caution, Danger Ahead!
The numerous nations that had the undesired privilege of being Russia's neighbors who saw their once vast homelands shrink to tiny geographic entities in the foothills of the Caucasus, the oases of Central Asia, the lush lands of eastern Siberia, and beyond, only to accommodate the larger than life wasteland of the Russian Federation have heard the call. The sacrifices of the enslaved nations must be taken into account. Denying them their inalienable rights is not only morally wrong, but it also undermines tremendous potential for economic and social development. Theirs have been a life of misery, under the czars and commissars.
It is in the case of the people of Asia where racism shows its ugly face and where the fingerprints of intolerance are clearly visible. It doesn't take much to ponder when 1.5 million Estonians are granted independence while 6.64 million Tatars are not only denied the right to self-determination, but are prevented from returning to their homeland in Crimea where the BahÇesaray Palace, the capital of their historic state, Kefe, a Tatar city that overshadowed Kiev in magnificence, the port city of Gözleve and other cities of the early sixteenth century defy the turbulence times through which they have survived. To the bewilderment of the Tatars, the whole Crimean peninsula is now a bone of contention between the Russians and the Ukrainians.
It goes without saying that the iron curtain must come down on the Asian side of the Russian empire, just as it did on the European side. The gates of the pretentious golden cage must swing wide open. The nations of Asia must be allowed to live their lives in social harmony, economic prosperity, and political freedom to cherish and preserve their rich cultural heritage without the shadow of the Russian bear looming overhead.
The further delay of disintegration stagnates Russian modernization as much as it affects the aspirations of the other nationalities trapped within the borders of the Russian Federation. The 28.6% of the territory that make up the national republics question the integration of Russia while the 15.2% of the population of the 21 ethno-federal republics undermine the homogeneity of a Russian state that could otherwise set it along a more productive path of political and economic progress.
We neither adhere to nor advance the cause of ethnic purity, but the displacement of millions of people through forced migration as part and parcel of Stalinist social engineering have debilitated the integrity of towns and cities where the sense of belonging has been weakened so much that it is determent to political mobilization and socio-economic integration.
Although the list of all the nationalities that comprise the former Soviet Union is pretty extensive, those making up the top 22 in terms of population according to the 1989 census are a testimonial to a state of affair where diversity without integration is the malaise in need of remedy:
Studying the ethnic map of the Russian Federation shows how arbitrary the borders have been re-drawn to accommodate Moscow's policies. If we were to re-draw the same map and give equal weight to pragmatic implementation and the interests of all nations, it would look noticeably different. The following hypothetical may be taken into account:
A pragmatic step in this respect would be the formation of new states on the peripheral borders of Russia. This could serve as a security belt as well as buffer zones. A case in point is India and China's border security that has been achieved through and greatly enhanced by the existence or creation of buffer states between their borders like Nepal, Bhutan, and Sikkim.
Russia's concern for having the Caucasus range as natural border to the south could easily be accomplished by granting independence to all of the states of northern Caucasus, which will form a band of buffer states along the border with Turkey and Iran. These states have much in common. Except for Christian Armenia, Georgia, and Ossetia, and the Buddhist Kalmykia, the rest of these republics are Muslim. The religious affinity, small and vulnerable size of their territories could lead to the formation of a stable confederation on Russia's southern border, much like the small states in Central America. Similarly, the Altai, Buryatia, and Tuva republics could serve as another set of buffer states along the border with Mongolia and China. Similarly, the right to self-determination of the nations in eastern Siberia like the Irkutsk, Yakut Sakha and others should be recognized. This reduced the hard to manage geographic expanse in the far east of the Russian Federation.
If Crimea, itself a bone of contention between Russian and Ukraine, is not returned to the Tatars, then Tatarstan and Bashkortostan could share border with Kazakhstan with minor border modifications just east of the Ural mountains.
The transfer of the large German and Jewish minorities to Kaliningrad could create a second homeland for Russian and/or European Jews. This would reduced the vulnerability of Israel as the only Jewish state as it reduces the influx of Jewish migration to Israel where the rapid population growth is a serious drain on the natural resources of the area. Similarly, the voluntary repatriation of Russians and Ukrainians from each other's territories would increase cohesion and homogeneity in each country.
Tragic and chaotic situations like those in Chechnya can be avoided if these aims are achieved through governmental bodies, constitutional processes, legislative acts, plebiscites, referenda, and elections.
As far as the Muslims of Asia are concerned, their right to self-determination must be given equal weight if a peaceful transition to a smaller and more cohesive Russia is desired. For Muslims, "not just the survival but the "flowering" of Muslim identity is a fact of life, and its symbols are clearly visible: the national-religious symbiosis, the specific way of life, local ethnic solidarity, endogamy, etc." Rywkin 1982: 150).
The 21 ethno-federal national republics in the Russian Federation include only 15.2% of the population but account for 28.6% of the territory of the Russian Federation." While the independence of some of the republic in the margins of the vast Russian Federation like Chechnya and Tuva might not contribute to the destabilization of the Federation, the independence of some of the republics in the heartland like the Tatars and Bashkirs could have a devastating effects if the problem is not solved tactfully and peacefully to the content of the parties involved.
Like the Soviet policies of the past and Russian practices of the present, the prospects of ethnic conflicts can have debilitating effects on Muslims and their Islamic identity. In spite of this gloom and doom of the past half-millennium, however, the prospects of a brighter future are great if only Russian Christians and Asian Muslims learn from their past mistakes and opt for a real and meaningful peaceful coexistence. To this, history shall testify in times to come.
To read other segments of ‘Half a Millennium of Religious Intolerance in Caucasia and Beyond’ (Click here)
References
Alexiev, Alex 1982. Soviet Nationalities in German Wartime Strategy, 1941-1945. Special Rand report, R-2772-NA, August 1982. Santa Monica, CA: Rand
Arkhipov, N. V. 1930. Sredneaziatski respubliki. Moscow-Leningrad: Gosizdat.
Asfendiarov, S. D. 1936. Natsional'no-osvoboditel'noe vosstanie 1916 g, v Kazakhstane. Alma-Ata-Moscow: Kazakhskoe Kraevoe izd.
Avtorkhanov, "Chechens and Ingush," and his Narodoubistvo v SSSR (Genocide in the USSR), Kommunist (February 1991): 101-12.
Baddeley, John F. 1908. The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus. London
Bennigsen Broxup, Marie. 1994. "The 'Internal' Muslim Factor in the Politics of Russia: Tatarstan and the North Caucasus", Central Asia and the Caucasus after the Soviet Union: Domestic and International Dynamics. Gainesville: University Press of Florida (Edited by Mohiaddin Mesbahi.)
Brainin, S. 1936. Amangedly Imanov. Alma-Ata-Moscow: Kazakhskoe Kraevoe izd.
Caroe, O.1967. Soviet Empire: The Turks of Central Asia and Stalinism. New York: St. Martin's Press
Donnelly, Alton S., 1968. The Russian Conquest of Bashkiria 1552-1740: A Case Study in Imperialism. New Haven and London, Yale University Press.
Fisher, Alan, 1978. The Crimean Tatars. Stanford, Ca. Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University.
Gammer, Moshe, 1994. Muslim Resistance to the Tsar: Shamir and the Conquest of Chechnia and Daghestan. London: Frank Cass.
Ghobar, Mir Ghulam Mohammad, 1967. Afghanistan dar Masir -i- Tarikh. Kabul: Government Press.
Hauner, Milan. 1981. India in Axis Strategy, Germany, Japan, and Indian Nationalists in the Second World War. London, Stuttgart: Clett/Cotta
Hauner, Milan. 1991. "Russia's Geopolitical and Ideological Dilemmas in Central Asia." In Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective. 1991 Robert L. Canfield (Ed.) New York: Cambridge University Press
Kaufman, A. A. 1903. K voprosu a russkoi kolonizatsii Turkestanskogo kraia. St. Petersburg: MZi G.L.
Khalfin, N. A., 1974. Rossiia i khanstva sredenei Azii Moscow: Nauka.
Kolarz, Walter. 1955. Russia and Her Colonies. New York: F. A. Praeger.
Krasnyi Arkhiv, (1941), No. 2 (105), 'K Biografii Shamilia', pp.115-39.
Lane, David. 1990. Soviet Society Under Perestroika. Boston: Unwin Hyman
Malozemoff, Andrew. 1958. Russian Far Eastern Policy 1881-1904. With Special Emphasis on the Causes of the Russo-Japanese War. Berkeley: University of California Press
Materialy BASSR Dopolnenie k aktam istoricheskim (12 vols. St. Petersburg,1846-72.
Miller, G. F. 1937. Istoriia Sibiri (2 vols. Moscow and Leningrad).
Orlov, D. 'Chastnoe Pis'mo o Vziatii Shamilia' , Russkii Arkhiv (1896), No. 6, cc. 1045-63.
Rozhkova, M. K.1963. Ekonomickeskie sviazi Rossii so Srednei Aziei 40-60-e gody XIX veka. Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR.
Russkaia istorichskaia biblioteka (39 vols. St. Petersburg, 1872-1927), 2, 283)
Rywkin, Michael, 1982. Moscow's Muslim Challenge: Soviet Central Asia. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc.
Venyukov, M. J. 1877.The Progress of Russia in Central Asia (translation from Sbornik gosudarstvennyukh znaniey). St. Petersburg. 22 pp., India Office Records: L/P & S/18C 17 (Political and Secret Memoranda)
Wallbank, T. Walter, et al. 1984. History and Life: The World and Its People (3rd Edition) Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Werth, Alexander, 1964. Russia at War, 1941-1945. New York.