The war in Ukraine has brought issues of self-identification and national identity in Central Asian states into focus. According to researchers, decolonisation issues had been discussed in the expert community previously, but it has gone beyond academic limits after the outbreak of the war. However, the degree of knowledge of the colonial past and decolonisation processes in the countries of the region is very diverse and it is often the political issue.
Pragmatism dictates position
According to researches carried out by Central Asia Barometer, residents of Central Asian states have rather ambiguous than polarised opinions about the war.
“When we ask what position their country should assume in the conflict, we see that the majority is for neutrality. But when we ask who is to blame and responsible for the situation, we see that people in Kazakhstan support Ukraine more. […] Kyrgyzstan supports Russia more because nearly 30 per cent blame Ukraine. However, this figure declines to 20 per cent in the last wave, and nearly 15-20 per cent blame Russia,” said Kasiet Ysmanova, director of Central Asia Barometer at the Central Asian Think Tanks Forum in Astana.
According to the research, respondents supportive of Russia in the conflict keep to the pragmatic approach. People say about economic and military dependence of their countries on Russia.
“It’s quite interesting because this is a very pragmatic approach among the population. We can see that despite the fact that majority of people consume entertaining and news content provided by Russia, their pragmatism still overweighs all the ideological attempts and propaganda. Our people still support [Russia] because they have a fear of hardcore consequences for their country, not because of the ‘decaying West’ and ‘Russia is our protector’, etc.,” said Kasiet Usmanova.
Complex of victim or self-sufficiency?
According to Ainash Mustoyapova, instructor of E.A.Buketov University of Karaganda (Kazakhstan), loyalty of residents in the region to Russia is the result of no ideology in the period of sovereignty. The nostalgia for the Union times, she said, was fuelled by the Russian propaganda on social media by videos and articles about the happy Soviet-period childhood and youth.
“It was a surprise for us to find out that so many people still believe in the possibility of revival of the Soviet Union and in our interpretation it means the revival of Kazakhstan as a colony. And I mean our citizens! […] If we had a certain system of values, promoted and articulated at all levels, we would not be dividing during every new conflict, […] because we would have one criterion, say, common human values, human rights, right to life, and others. But there are no such values, they have not been shaped, and they are not dominating in the society. It leads to our division and emergence of new breakups,” she said.
According to Elmira Nogoibaeva, chief of think tank “Polis Asia” (Kyrgyzstan), countries with the colonial past should not focus on victimhood. According to her, it is important now to analyse and comprehend collective traumas, yet it is better to take it quietly and move on.
“I do not believe in the shortage of values, ideology. I believe it is a misleading reference. We will always feel ourselves imperfect as long as we continue to look for such things. I don’t believe that our society is posttraumatic. […]. As long as there is pain, empathy, love, which are normal feelings, we are alive, and we are moving on. I am against a constant sense of victimhood. It is also a colonialism thing because they convey it to us – the sense of guilt, etc. In fact, I believe that our generation is the reviving one,” Elmira Nogoibaeva said.
According to Galym Zhusupbek, independent analyst based in Kazakhstan, it’s up to think tanks, the intellectuals to develop the concept and idea. He said about the harm of academic colonialism and believes it is important to design one’ own future, while looking for the mechanisms of improvement of one’s own culture, development of the language, so that they comply with the contemporary requirements.
“We are in the state of academic colonialism because we often use concepts that are not our own, and which can not only become obsolete, but also can be Russian. […] The war in Ukraine has shown that colonialism is real and that it is the hierarchy thing. We think that there is a more developed language and more developed country out there, which can impose certain patterns on us, how to live, how to think, how to interpret the history. We have been aware of it, but only superficially,” the expert said.
“Different past” and internal hierarchy
Despite the big attention of researchers to the decolonisation processes, not all countries of Central Asia have enough freedoms and opportunities to study them, especially in the countries with blocked access to the archives.
“Here in Tajikistan, we are not used to researching and we even avoid using such words as ‘decolonial’ policy and ‘decolonialism’,” said historian Saifullo Mullodzhanov.
Experts relate high loyalty of citizens to Russia not only to the efficiency of the Russian propaganda on the media, but also to hardships of researching into the colonial past, decolonisation processes.
“Archives are like a litmus test. […] I believe that Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are the states that are most loyal to Russia, and our archives are still closed to public. In Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the topic of decolonialism is both relevant and irrelevant,” Nogoibaeva said.
However, there are concerns about segregation and future political conflicts in Central Asia, especially amid issues of access to water or territorial disputes. According to Elmira Nogoibaeva, it is the issue of ‘diverse past’ designed in Central Asian states, which affects the perception of today.
“Look how different is the past among Uzbeks and Tajiks, and the Kyrgyz and Tajiks about the Fergana Valley. If we carry out the content analysis of our states on how the region (of Central Asian – Editor’s note) has been formed, we will see hidden conflicts, which will show up sooner or later. We have seen it in Kyrgyzstan recently. Imaginary conflicts are filled with imaginary interpretation of our past, and it is a dangerous thing,” Elmira Nogoibaeva said.
Researcher Asel Doolotkeldieva draws attention to hierarchies inside the region, and reminds about oppression of migrant workers and January events in Kazakhstan, when authorities reported the attack by terrorists, who allegedly came to Kazakhstan “from one Central Asian city.”
“When we see that Uzbek or Tajik migrant workers are treated in Kazakhstan in a chauvinistic way, just like in Russia, when the regime in Kazakhstan makes a new threat and new terrorists out of Kyrgyzstanis, and some Kazakhstanis agree with that, it is a sensitive issue. Do we need to speak about domestic hierarchies? Because only then we can speak about real emancipation,” said Asel Doolotkeldieva.