One would think that all Central Asian presidents would know better than to be frank and open around a group of journalists. Either Emomali Rahmon forgot this, was drunk, or meant for his short diatribe against Islom Karimov the other day to make it out to the public.
First the Russian:
«К Каримову я очень хорошо раньше относился… Мы называли его «отамиз» («наш отец» по-узбекски. — Ред.), но потом мы многое узнали. Этот человек борется против всего таджикского… не хочет развития нашей страны, закрывает дороги, отключает в холодную зиму нам электричество», — делился воспоминаниями Эмомали Рахмон. И продолжал: «Однажды мы были с ним в Самарканде, академик Мухаммаджон Шукуров не даст соврать, он был с нами. Я спросил одного человека, стоявшего рядом: «Кто ты по нации?» Он смотрит на Каримова, вижу, боится его и отвечает: «Я самаркандский». Вот в таком положении там сегодня таджики». …
Г-н Рахмон продолжал: «Я много раз с ним (Каримовым. — Ред.) спорил, два раза даже подрался (Рахмон употребил другое слово, которое по соображениям политкорректности мы не приводим. — Ред.), один раз нас Назарбаев разнял, второй раз Кучма… И я сказал ему: «Самарканд и Бухару мы все равно возьмем!»
…and my rough translation:
“I once thought very well of Karimov… We called him ‘otamiz’ (‘our father’ in Uzbek — ed.), but we have discovered much about him. This man fights against all Tajiks… he doesn’t want our country to develop, closes roads, shuts off our electricity in the cold of winter” reminisced Emomali Rahmon. And he continued, “One time we were with him in Samarkand — the academic Muhammadjon Shukuruov can confirm this — he was with us. I asked one person who was nearby, ‘What is your nationality?’ He looked at Karimov, I can see that he is afraid, and he answers, ‘I am Samarkandi.’ That is the situation for Tajiks there today.” …
Mr. Rahmon continued, “I argued with him (Karimov — ed.) many times, two times I even fought (Rahmon used another word, which for the sake of political correctness we do not provide — ed.) with him, the first time Nazarbaev separated us, the second time Kuchma… And I said to him, ‘We will take Samarkand and Bukhara!’”
If only all the Central Asian presidents would loosen up and share their feelings…
This post was written by...
Nathan Hamm – author of 2974 posts on Registan.net.
Nathan is the Founding Editor and Publisher of Registan.net, which he launched in 2003. He was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Uzbekistan 2000-2001 and received his MA in Central Asian Studies from the University of Washington in 2007. Since 2007, he has worked full-time as an analyst, consulting with private and government clients on Central Asian affairs, specializing in how socio-cultural and political factors shape risks and opportunities and how organizations can adjust their strategic and operational plans to account for these variables. Nathan is currently seeking research, analysis, and consulting opportunities. He can be contacted via Twitter or email.
For information on reproducing this article, see our Terms of Use
{ 58 comments }
Should be a popular diatribe in Tajikistan.
What a fine post. Where do you get Russian language program? I’m new to computers because I’m old so I don’t konw. There are so many stories about local leaders and how they interact that perhaps if more Americans peeked into their meetings they might not think Kabul so bad.
Why only Samarkand and Bukhara? Please, take all of Uzbekistan, we will happily submit!
ethnostate sucks big time. What did this mf rahmon did to his own people before anything? NOTHING!!!
Does that goes for Uzbekistan and Karimov too?
Karimov did a lot for his nation. First of all he preserved peace and stability, even though on expense of freedoms. For me personally being safe and feeling confident about future matters more than freedom to critisize the government.
Let’s admit it, Uzbekistan has grown economicall much stronger than it used to be before 1991. Just check on this at World Bank website on this.
Economic growth will transform into growth in political freedoms in future. Impossible to have sustainable growth with “free politics”, best example of this is Kyrgyzstan, a failed state. Or just take this poor Tajikistan, where so-called “democracy & freedom” resulted in civil war with over 200 000 civil lives. You simply can’t compare this low IQ nationalist joker Rakhmon with the person who’s leading his nation to better life, like Moses did with his nation in Sinai penunsuala for long years. Karimov is doing his mission on this – preparing soil for future. You’ll witness soon that Uzbekistan is going to be the most prosperious and advanced nation of the region.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJfceQzUdbA
thanks
I love my country, nothing wrong to be patriotic.
I believe this is some rumor attack.
@guest_from_Uzbekistan, you are absolutely right,the political stability ,safety of Uzbeks,and peace throughout Uzbekistan is by far the most important matter than any political infighting,shouting,writing shady articles in newspapers,or allowing the brainwashing of Uzbeks by islamic fascists and religious fundamentalists all of which will destroy the peace and unity of Uzbekistan .Just witness the situation in next door Afghanistan and the civil war in Tajikistan where millions of helpless citizens were murdered by armed groups who were sold out to foreign powers and who destroyed much of country and now these countries are poor,destitute and there is little unity or stability.The fact that Uzbeks with the leadership of Karimov and his government worked hard to maintain unity,stability and peace and now some economic achievement,speak volumes about the wisdom of Uzbeks which we in Afghanistan only dream about.Without first achieving stability,unity and peace there can never be any progress in prosperity or political advancement.I so much wish we had a government in Afghanistan just like the very determined government of Uzbekistan to keep stability at any cost and to keep foreign powers and their domestic thugs away from the country so people can live in peace which enables them improve their economic situation.Once we achieve unity,stability and economic prosperity,then we can aspire for political advancement,open and civil debate in a free press.The fruit of freedom must first mature before we can enjoy its taste;otherwise a raw fruit of any kind will make you sick or could kill you.So bravo to Uzbekistan and its government,you are on a correct path,may God bless you to achieve ever greater peace and unity ,and economic prosperity for Uzbek people;long live Uzbekistan and may her enemies fail miserably.
Toryalay, I wish you and Afghanistan to live in peace and prosper once again.
Hopefully, the West will finally correct the mess it created there together with Soviets.
People of our region deserve to live in dignity enjoying peace and freedom like they do in developed world. I hope these days will come in our countries as well. We need to work hard to achieve this through creative work, but not through nationalism, fundamentalism and other destructive idealogy.
God bless you and your country, god bless all of us !
“long live Uzbekistan and may her enemies fail miserably”.
I agree, of course assuming that the main enemies of Uzbekistan and its people are the Karimov-Kafirov regime and its foreign backers.
“Запад втайне поддерживал и поддерживает репрессии Каримова”
http://qirim-vilayeti.org/content/view/1342/96/
Everything is relative. Uzbekistan is doing well compared to Tajikistan. But how well it was supposed to do given its resources and advantages?
Think about this a little bit.
“You’ll witness soon that Uzbekistan is going to be the most prosperious and advanced nation of the region.”
“Guest,” that sounds familiar. I think seen that phrase before somewhere. But not prosperous and advanced exactly, something about “becoming a great state.” Hmm.
Economically Uzbekistan has been expanding quite well. Economist Intelligence Unit says Uzbekistan is expected to be among the top 5 performers:
http://www.eiuresources.com/mediadir/default.asp?PR=2009121401
That only bring us back to the question to what extent macro-economic profiles and -forecasts (often based on official statistics or one one or two raw materials) say something about a country’s and societies’ social situation and social development. Little. Look at the EIU table that you mention: Congo-Brazzaville and Angola are expected to grow too…
Turgai, economic growth pace of Uzbekistan is more similar to that of China. If Congo-Brazzaville and Angola are going to perform economically well, I don’t mind being associated with them too.
I am not sure if you’re familar with situation in Uzbekistan or not. But for your info Uzbekistan started from very low income level after brakeup of soviet union. I remember critics of Karimov promising collaps of Uzbek Economy each year (look up sources like international war & peace reporting). But alas! Uzbekistan emerged winner each year!
It has been among top performers compared with former soviet states, has had stable economic growth both in good times and bad times. That’s an impressive achievement, whether you like it or not.
Yes I’m familiar with Uzbekistan.
Reg. the comparison with China: sorry that’s wishful thinking because economically Uzbekistan depends on one or a few raw materials (cotton to start with) whereas China is not or at least not to the same extent. Also, China’s economy is not as dominated by one family and its cronies as it is in Uzbekistan even though several of its key sectors are controlled by party-connected groups.
The point hat I wanted to make by referring to the two African states in the EIU table is, that Angola, for example, indeed shows impressive marco-economic growth figures merely thanks to one commodity (oil, much of it concentrated in the Cabinda enclave and offshore in the north-west). Yet when you go there, you can just see that the growth and the money are concentrated in a few enclaves (esp. certain parts of the capital) and in the hands of a tiny percentage of the population (much of them members of the former Communist regime and its cronies). Outside, it’s pretty much squalor and survival economy and the country and its politcial system are stiff with corruption.
So coming up with impressive GDP growth tables year after year to impress the EBRD or the WB twats at seminars is well tried, but says absolutely *nothing* about the social situation, the human capital and the distribution of wealth in the country. If things are so brilliant or improving, why are tens of thousands of male Uzbeks working as labour migrants in Russia in the first place?
Guest, at this level too, Uzbekistan’s regime pretty much behaves as it did in the Uzbek SSR at the time: send flashy stats and ur-ra ur-ra ur-ra reports to Gosplan in Moscow and everything will be fine.
Guest: since you like to quote indicators of international organisations, you are certainly interested in this…
“Рейтинг Узбекистана: Стоит ли президенту Каримову гордиться «достижениями» своей республики?”
http://www.ferghana.ru/article.php?id=6405
Maybe somewhere like this?
http://www.uznews.net/con_images/news/0012046.jpg
Wow, color me oblivious to the fact that they’ve switched to Latin script.
Or here?
http://www.uwed.uz/
is it wrong to have a vision like this?
in a country like Uzbekistan, with societal culture formed during soviets the methods of government by Karimov is the most efficient. His vision is great in itself – building prosperious country.
“is it wrong to have a vision like this?”
Not at all. Yet those who are familiar with *reality* in Uzbekistan have a hard time taking that seriously. I wonder if even Karimov and/or his daughters believe it.
Özbekistandan mehmon: Karimov is a former Soviet apparatchik and that’s what he essentially still is even if it is in a different package. Although the Soviet system certainly had a number of achievements and advantages, it was also one with a political culture based on façade, bluff and smokescreens.
That’s what he still does. And it works with a certain kind of foreign diplomats, scholars, journalists and businesspeople (which says more about them than about Karimov actually). But not with everyone.
Krimov and his government have succeeded in defeating islamic fascists in Uzbekistan;they are not allowing islamic fundamentalists to flourish there,they have taken strong measures to stop terrorists inside Uzbekistan and any of them going abroad.The Uzbek leadership has made great efforts at keeping stability and peace;this is why uzbeks are not blown up every day like in Afghanistan.There is general security throughout Uzbekistan and their economy is getting better every year,their exports have increased to many more countries.If cannot be grateful to all this,you are being either arrogant or blind or you just have a bad attitude.Uzbekistan has been a very responsible country and they deserve respect and credit.Uzbekistan for ever!!!
Have you ever been, or lived, in Uzbekistan?
There’s a chasm between revolutionary Salafism and the notion of Islam as being part of a people’s everyday cultural identity, and by brutalizing the second, Karimov helps fuel the first.
You are not in Uzbekistan now and so you are not helping Uzbekistan to become a strong and prosperous country.Instead you seem to live some where in the West and just bitching about Uzbeks who work hard every day to protect their independence ,keep the country stable and safe and to improve and advance their economy.Get real and give the good Uzbeks including the very able Uzbek government the respect they deserve.
So the people massacred in Andijan were bad Uzbeks? Opponents to the Karimov regime come in different colors, but it’s convenient for him to lump them all in with the very worst and say the oppositions consists entirely of violent radicals. It’s the same tactic used by Putin, another ex-Party apparatchik, in Chechnya
most likely, bloodshet in Andijan rests on responsibility with western NGOs. It was an intent to make “Color revolution” in Uzbekistan. Those who plotted this bloody Friday event surely made a big mistake thinking that they can achieve it by force.
Interestingly, former president of Kyrgyzsan – Akaev (denoted in West as the only true democrat building isle of democracy in Central Asia) said, color revolutions were promoted by western money to overthrow unwanted governments. He actually supported crackdown on demonstration of militants and misguided crowd calling it as a necessary measure to save the region from color revolutions.
So the NSS troops and the people giving their orders have no responsibility for killing 700 of their citizens?
Generally speaking, it seems there is a disparity in the thinking of those who know about the region by learning or perhaps having visited – let’s call them the academics – and those who are born and have lived for some period of time in Central Asia – let’s call them the natives.
The academics hate autocratic rule and desire democracy and open society for Central Asia. The natives, on this blog on this topic, seem to want democracy and open society, too, but they want guaranteed security from the threat of Islamic extremism first. The academics have not addressed that issue yet.
How should Uzbekistan keep radicals away and have freedom of religion at the same time?
Besides ‘Western academics’ and ‘natives’ there may be a third category of commentators on this and other blog and forums: people who have spent years in Uzbekistan or/and the wider region and have become, in various ways, personally connected to it, sometimes tightly so.
Depending on the case we could call them either ‘natives honoris causa’
or privileged witnesses.
Shohmurod–
While it may seem that the commentors are divided into the two types that you identify–and it may be true among the five or six people commenting here–I really don’t think it’s very fair to assume that only “Western academics” want freedom of religion or open society in Uzbekistan, or that some majority of indigenous people in the region only want an open society after eliminating all the voices they don’t like. (Well, okay, probably a lot of people in all societies want that very thing but wouldn’t like it very much if they actually got it, particularly when it was their turn to be eliminated).
Secondly, I think you’re posing a false dilemma. Freedom of religion and the marginalization or elimination of unhealthy radical ideologies are not necessarily processes that are in a zero-sum conflict with one another. In fact, at some point squeezing the freedom of religion (or any other type of thought) to reduce the space for radical ideologies can have the opposite of the intended effect: the more you narrow the parameters of what legitimate belief can be, the greater the number of people who suddenly find themselves outside of those parameters.
Noah,
Thank you for your intelligent response. Would you believe I agree with you in the absolute sense. But this is a transitional period for Uzbekistan. You may know, in the early days here, Quakers had been crucified by Purists for not towing the line, and those were transitional periods of faith and building in America. Years later, Thomas Jefferson had to include protection from religious persecution in the Constitution to make this a perfect union. My point is, it took time. And so, neither will Uzbekistan become Switzerland tomorrow, but over time…
Another example comes to mind, should Germany legalize Nazis again? They are extremists. Is keeping them illegal necessarily increasing their numbers?
“Another example comes to mind, should Germany legalize Nazis again?”
“My point is, it took time.”
Yes. What we see in the case of Uzbekistan, however, is that ‘taking time’, ‘develop our economy before we can democratise’ and what all is merely a mantra that is being ruminated since the early nineties with the sole purpose of ‘winning time’ for the regime and serves as peptalk and a smokescreen for the international financial institutions. As said, I don’t think that even I.A. and G.I. Karimov(a) and their cronies believe it themselves.
Shohmurod, you are quite right about the fact that Uzbekistan is in a transition state right now and that it will take time for it to achieve levels prevailing in England or the USA.However the government of Uzbekistan is working hard on the fundamentals: KEEP THE COUNTRY STABLE,safe and at peace;work on economic advancement and building up of infrastructure and make progress in education.These undertakings take a lot of energy,resources,capital and manpower;and the Uzbeks are being very smart about not wasting their resources and energies on political quarreling ,religious fundamentalism and other wasteful destructive endeavors.So more power to them.
keep peace on earth !
Shohmurod–
I guess I should have responded last night before the thread of our discussion got lost in the “IT’S BLACK! NO! IT’S WHITE!!” argument. Though I guess I’m just provoking them.
(Seriously, though, Toralzay, it’s very clear, at least in this one thread, that you think Islam Karimov is a wonderful human being and a paragon of moral virtue and that Uzbekistan is some kind of paradise on earth. It’s not really necessary to keep repeating it.
I’m certainly not going to bother arguing with you because you’re clearly not interested in anyone else’s perspective.)
Sorry, Shohmurod, back to our thread, which I would be happy to continue with you in email if you want.
Really, I think you’re still posing a false dilemma, at least as I see the debate. What about the Nazis in Germany? I don’t think that’s the question at hand, or even related to to the question at hand.
After all, if the debate–not just in Uzbekistan, but in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan too, which all have laws restricting religion and civil society that very closely resemble one another–was really about the need to eliminate violent extremism, why would the security organs and judiciary of each of these countries also persecute and outlaw small minority religious groups and “cults” that have no history of violence or anti-government activity? To use the terms I did above again for consistency, when you narrow the parameters of acceptable activity so far beyond things that can be even remotely considered “extremism” how does that help stop extremism?
But going back to Uzbekistan, how does de facto legislating at what age a man is allowed to grow a beard or exactly how much of her hair a woman can cover with a scarf (or keeping track of exactly who goes to a mosque already controlled by the government and how often) effectively battle violent extremist ideologies. Most forms of social organization have extremist fringes on both the left and right, but allowing the healthy function of the middle might just be best way to keep the fringe from growing.
More than that, how does persecuting Jehovah’s Witnesses and Scientologists and Russian Baptists fight Islamist radicalism?
Please don’t get me wrong, I’m no defender of people who want to violently impose their religion on states or other people. It’s the duty of every state and government to protect its people from terrorists and violent radicals, Uzbekistan included. But I’m also “not a big fan” of any state that violently imposes its own interpretation of religion on its citizens.
wisdom learned in latest centuries states religion should stay out of politics, ohterwise there will be a big mess. It’s gonna be messier in low income country like Uzbekistan, if religious group gets into politics. Poor people are easy to manipulate with religion, that’s selfexplanatory. The simple logic states, that controlling religion is a must in Uzbekistan. Otherwise the country risks of getting conservative society where freedoms of people, women are utterly restricted by dogmas, which are almost impossible to change.
There are more important issues in Uzbekistan than problems of religious freedom. The county is better to stress on economic and educational problems rather than protecting interests of ‘non-violent’ religious groups.
p.s. Jehovah’s Witnesses ban is an example of consistency in government’s politics on religion. Allowing Jehovah’s Witnesses to run freely and keeping Hizb-ut-Tahrir banned would send wrong message to people.
Brief observation:
The topic was about Rahmon’s irresponsible comment. Someone (apparently with special mission) turned it into whole debate on Karimov & Uzbekistan. The article itself, Rahmon and his politics seem to be none of interest of anybody.
“Someone (apparently with special mission)”
Let’s take a guess. Emmmm….. you?
Anonymous comments are the best.
Noah, I will try to make it brief and hit each question with a short answer. Nazis in Germany, that was to give an example of a banned extremist group and how keeping them banned does not contribute to an increase in their numbers – referring to your comment about narrowing the parameters of legitimate belief. Next, outlawing minority religious groups together with extremists, well, that posits more than one answer, law should be uniform, individual zealot police commanders possibly go overboard, etc., I am only guessing, don’t quote me now. Bears and scarves, well, Ataturk taught it and Turkey looks, emphasis on looks, modern now to the eyes of former Communist leaders, so they go along. Should they use Malaysia as an example? Naaa. Persecuting Jehova’s witnesses and Christian missionaries, well, that’s done by policemen who are born and raised Muslim and have police powers and an excuse. Moreover, who knows what the authorities know about these groups that you and I don’t know. Do you ever give room for the unknown possibility in your analysis? Or do you know? do share! I wish the authorities in Uzbekistan didn’t act like jerks, for lack of a weightier adjective on the tip of my tongue, either, but these small injustices do go on. It wouldn’t be much of a thrill being a missionary in Utah anyways…
I thought people like you should know by now that Russian-language media reports about Central Asian affairs are most often based on heavy distortion of truth with no hard facts and primary intention to set one state against the other. Particularly, the Kremlin-sponsored media and its biased coverage of Tajikistan events has been quite evident to everyone. This is how they prefer to keep their influence in the region and exactly the reason why they are not successful.
In this specific example, majority of press conference participants were local media representatives and in fact, they all published articles about the outcomes of the event, but none of them had mentioned anything relating to plans to return Samarqand and Bukhoro. Although, I strongly oppose Rahmon in his post as president since this undereducated provincial-level person has severely mismanaged the country, the issue of two major Tajik cities is worthy of another discussion.
Therefore, I would like to ask authors to check the reliability of each article with several sources before following up on them as valid points. Lastly, I encourage everyone to rely less on Russian language media such as centrasia.ru or ca-news.org which have been extensively used by political groups who want to undermine the development of the region as a strong, stable, and prosperous part of the world.
P.S.: The guy who claims to be journalist and author of original article, Arkadiy Dubnov, was not among the participants of this event and supposedly, spoke with someone over the phone to get the information.
Yeah, I’ve seen some follow-on stories that make the original story almost certainly untrue.
That said, that it’s been reported and discussed in the region is noteworthy.
The ethnic issue is “hot”, I understand this, however, it is impossible to create perfect states that will accurately separate states on ethnic lines.
Both, Samarkand and Bukhara cities, first of all, have considerable Uzbek population as well. Secind, both cities are surrounded by pretty homogenious Uzbek population that extends deep into Tajikistan’s Qo’rg’onteppa region.
If, let us assume ignoring the physical map, both Samarkand and Bukhara regions will be incorporated into Tajikistan, it will do more harn than good to ultra-nationalist government of Tajikistan. Because it might raise the total Uzbek population in Tajikistan from current 25% (which Tajik government tries to disguise as 11%, see Matteo Fummurgali’s works) up to 35%-40%. In this case, Emom Rahmon will become a prisoner of his own ‘aryan’ vision.
There is also a historical aspect. Samarkand and Bukhara were capital cities of medeival empires from which current Uzbeks have descended. There was only one case, when a a persian-speaking state briefly ruled from Bukhara, but even Samanids were a semi-vassal state of Arabs (smth like Freely Associate Areas of the US).
Except for the Samanid tomb, virtually all the historical buildings in those cities carry huge symbolic meaning for Uzbeks.
Moreover, everyone forgot to ask the people of Samarkand and Bukhara. AFAIK, they feel fine living in Uzbekistan, at least, there are no signs of secessionism or separatism. They have considerable political influence in Uzbekistan, but they contest for power and within Uzbekistan. Unfortunately, thins are not looking cute in Tajikistan. Rahmon seems to be in hysteria as we witness constant jailings of ethnic Uzbeks either on espionage for Uzbekistan (if they secular) or terrorists associated with the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. He is renaming cities from Uzbek into Tajik, registering people with old tribal names insted of national identity, and now, threatening the territorial integrity of Uzbekistan as a whole.
His corrupt and incompetent government has not been able to achieve any substantial improvements in the country and remaining in power solely on the basis of nationalist propaganda and, if necessary, by repression.
It is simply unrealistic ti imagine people of Samarkand and Bukhara cities jumping into the hands of Emom Rahmon and his incompetent government simply because Emom the Tractorist is now portraying himself as the Father of all Tajiks. If he really cared about Tajik people, why not first to take care of Tajiks in Tajikistan?
Whether Tajik or Uzbek, ethnic nationalism ‘reinvented’ by ex-Communist apparatchiks, is a dead-end by definition.
Nathan, Thank you for posting this very interesting discussion thread. I especially appreciate seeing views from different English-speaking Central Asians published in Registan…
googo0sha says,
thatz sounds like fun.
boiling water, under age overwork cotton pickers,sex partys.
crazy ambassadors,nutty passport control,kokakola,
sit on the floor crappers,brib n fer fun, tashkent taxi ,goofy traffic coppers, funlovinlonggleggyinlovewithxpat/military uzbek/ruski babes,
modern soviet/old soviet/if is broke dont fixit soviet technic-
old commiecratz/lenin tshirts, bad brew/good brew.
on and on and on etc etc
I think there is indeed an economic improvement in Uzbekistan. What remains largely unreflected in all reports is that Uzbeks have amended a great deal of laws on private entrepreneurship, taxation, farming and etc. These changes have made timid, but sustainable growth possible.
Having said this, it does not mean that Uzbekistan is now an economic gear of Central Asia. It has been noticed while all the others were not functioning properly. Also, none is speaking about the current budget deficit.
On Tajik President: I do not think he said it, somehow that Dubnov guy looks like an old Soviet alcoholic to me. But the fact that Uzbeks don’t want Russians invest in Tajiks’ hydropower constructions is really playing on Rakhmon’s nerves. Russians want to invest only if they fully control the hydropower and water flows, which arises post-colonial emotions among uzbeks. Thus, poor Tajiks are faced with a dilemma of finding an investor, who would also please their neighbors. China again?
AHAD:
First, there is a fine line between nationalists (millatgaro) and nation-lovers (millatdust) of which the former is evil and latter is good. It is clear that Karimov of Uzbakistan is clearly a nationalist while Rahmon in Tajikistan is not either one, despite all their achievements or failures. But we all know what horrible fate awaits nationalists.
Second, this is not a best place or setting to argue about History of Axe Type Division which has been revealed to world by Rahim Masov and etc. Just to mention that 80% of Tajiks during creation of Soviet republics in Central Asia have been forcefully signed up as Uzbak and according to our estimates, over half of population in current day Uzbekistan are ethnic Tajiks is adequate to demonstrate the significance of the problem.
However, the solution to this problem cannot be a military, but an economic one. Tajikistan will need to develop into prosperous democratic state and integrate more with its Persian speaking brother-nations as well as create stronger ties with the Western nations in order to become a viable alternative for its compatriots abroad and a model for peaceful coexistence in the region.
As history goes, we see that precisely because of rule of barbarian invading Mongolic tribes after the Samanid’s state our leading science, literature, infrastructure and prosperous Tajik-Persian civilization of 10-11 century was turned into a poorest and powerless regions of the world by 19-20 century that Russians were able to seize without much effort.
Conclusion is that Rahmon, a selfish and undereducated country boy put into throne, cares little about his nation’s well being and contemplations about issues such as Samarkand and Bukhoro are far away from his mind’s reach, so this report by a pseudo journalist is based on lie and representation of true Russian interests into getting our countries confront more each other.
Hopefully, we have a new leadership building up by a new patriotic and progressive thinking group of Tajiks from abroad who will eventually pressure Rahmon’s regime to give up peacefully for the sake of creating better future for our nation.
Botur Kosimi:
Reliability of books of Tajik ‘academic’ Rahim Masov is questionable at best, as this person is pronounced ultra nationalist. All his work is devoted to proving ‘uniqueness’ of Tajiks and their cultural ‘superiority’ over ‘barbarian invading Mongolic tribes’ who, in words of Mr. Masov, are nowadays Uzbeks. He claims that barbarians (Uzbeks) have been oppressing poor civilized noble Aryans (Tajiks) for hundreds of years taking their lands and pride, and now it is time for Tajiks to restore their ‘noble’ rule over their historical lands (which were apparently given to them by God).
Obviously, the head of all Tajiks Mr. Rakhmon is a great sympathizer of Mr.Masov, as he openly holds Uzbeks responsible for all troubles of Tajikistan.
‘Your’ arguments about tajiks representing 50% of Uzbek population are incorrect; it fact, the number does not exceed 5%.
It is also hard to prove claims about 80% of Tajiks being ‘forced’ to sign as Uzbeks; this looks like nationalist propaganda a la academic Masov. It is not excluded, that some ethnic Tajiks were indeed registered as Uzbeks. However, this had most likely to do their personal preference not to be associated with their ethnic background. Existence of such practices does not indicate discrimination at all, as they could not be discriminated on the basis of their ID documents. In reality, indication of ethnic origin in registrar documents might become a source of discrimination. No wonder, why in US, Europe and developed nations ID documents do not put indication of ethnic origin.
Another article about Rahmon’s uneasy relations with Uzbekistan:
http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=1261304280
Isn’t Karimov a Tajik or at least half Tajik himself? Or would he classify himself as a Samarkandi?
Botur bacha,
If you think Emom the Tractorist is not nationalist, you must be the great contender to author a Tajik Mein Kampf!