map
Our Affiliates
Listen In 28 LanguagesRFE/RL Radio
In 28 Languages

'Berlin Wall's Lessons For Today'

In an op-ed for "USA Today," Jeffrey Gedmin discusses RFE and the role of free media in societies living under repressive regimes. More
More Articles

Commentary

Apparently, Russia Needs Just One 'National Component'

Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev (center) with his Estonian counterpart Toomas Hendrik Ilves at the Fifth World Congress of Finno-Ugric People in Khanty-Mansiisk

April 23, 2009
By Ahto Lobjakas
"The very historical development of the Russian nation is in no small measure based on the riches associated with our ethnocultural and multiconfessional environment. For many centuries we have inhabited a state composed of more than 160 different peoples."

The quotation comes from Dmitry Medvedev, president of the Russian Federation, who delivered these lines -- and many others embodying similar sentiments -- to the Fifth World Congress of Finno-Ugric Peoples in Khanty-Mansiisk on June 28, 2008.

This is the same President Medvedev whose government the year before introduced federal law No.309, removing the so-called national component from the federal "standard" of education. As of September 1 this year, it is no longer the "subjects of the Russian Federation" -- or the so-called titular nationalities in Russia's dozens of ethnic autonomies -- who will decide whether the language, history, or culture of their nominally dominant non-Russian ethnic entities will be taught at state schools.

Instead, individual schools will decide. Or, in practice, the federal Ministry of Education and Science, whose writ runs in those schools. And the ministry has issued guidelines stipulating that no elements of the "national component" are to be taught on state time, as it were.

What this means for Russia's 21 nominally autonomous republics and other ethnic minorities represented at other levels is difficult to overstate. Their struggle to retain their cultural and ethnic identities in today's Russia is truly a desperate one.

In the Republic of Bashkortostan, a few thousand demonstrators took to the streets this week, while Tatarstan's President Mintimer Shaimiyev has said the removal of the "ethnic component" from the educational curriculum is "unacceptable."

The reaction has been strongest in Tatarstan and other predominantly Muslim regions in southern Russia. Speaking in August last year, the chief mufti of Perm, Muhhamedgali hazrat Huzin, said he does not want to become an "Ivan without a history." In words that might have been borrowed straight from Medvedev's speech two months earlier, the mufti said that for a civilized country where the rule of law prevails, "ethnic diversity is a grounding value."

Russian Language Under Threat?


The Medvedev of June 2008 could not agree more. "Teaching people about their origins means inculcating respect for the family, the experience of the older generation, work, and patriotic values. It teaches something that is absolutely necessary for the creation of a civilized, tolerant environment and for civic maturity."

What Medvedev thinks now is anyone's guess.

The responsibility for any major decision is the president's alone in Russia, Medvedev told the BBC in an interview in March. "The major decisions in the name of the state are made by the president," he said. "This is an obvious thing."

Clearly this must apply a to legislative change liable to have lasting repercussions for the ethnic makeup of the Russian state.

It is not difficult to conclude that, having lost an empire, Russia is desperate to hang on to what it has got left.

As analyst Paul Goble wrote on his blog "Window On Eurasia" on April 19, the Russian language is increasingly on the defensive in the former Soviet space. Georgia, Ukraine, even Tajikistan and Belarus -- all for their own reasons, of course -- have recently dropped rebroadcasts of Russian state-owned television channels. Anecdotal evidence is mounting that the young especially are turning away from the old colonial lingua franca, from Central Asia to the South Caucasus.

Russia's "titular nations," on the other hand, have nowhere to run. The Republic of Tatarstan and a few others may put their hopes on their political weight. Others, like Russia's 3 million speakers of Finno-Ugric languages, look to kindred nations Estonia, Finland, and Hungary -- who have made it to the subsidized haven of diversity that is the EU -- for help.

But even Finland, with potentially the greatest leverage on Moscow, is keeping a low profile. Meeting Medvedev in Helsinki on April 20, Finnish President Tarja Halonen made no public reference to the plight of her ethnic cousins.

All the EU and its three Finno-Ugric member states can do is offer a few million euros in "cultural aid." This is no more than a token gesture in the face of what looks like a determined campaign of ethnic assimilation on the part of the Russian government. No prisoners, no problem -- to give a tsarist metaphor a Stalinist twist.

Ahto Lobjakas is a regular contributor to RFE/RL. The views expressed in this commentary are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL
This forum has been closed.
     
Comments
by: Konstantin from: Los Angeles
May 05, 2009 02:13
Lobjakis is not unlike Russia’s Trojan horse.
Stalin had nothing to do with Lobjakis’s worst:
Read last USSR Constitution and its Preamble,
USSR was temporary World War Two gamble.

CIA nations were always free, but were invaded
By number of empires. Lobjakis is too avoiding!
Russia was created by its neighbors since Peter,
To shear with its creators tools to be stronger…

Russia tried annex USSR, - now Bashkirians.
Going against republics of Russian Federation,
Enslaving non-Russians and non-Varangians,
Like slaves from CIS, by Russia destruction.

Industries destroyed by Russia’s board-age
And 5th column of the Bolshevik sabotage
In most of CIS - and now it is Tataria too.
Titular like Welsh, Lobjakis? Not true…

Russia pushing for Feudal slavery and hate.
Remember some best children of Bashkiria,
Blown in Switzerland, land of czar’s estate?
Another salute for Emperors by Varangians?

Tatarts and Bashkirians are not what you said.
They see the end of their life - as many in CIS,
By expanding Russian evil - outward and inward.
If even form misguided - they stand for their rights.

Konstantin.


by: Brazilian Man from: São Paulo, Brazil
April 30, 2009 23:30
Russia always got the problem of ethnic and religious conflict mainly because of its lack of solid democracy and pluralism.

Compare, for example, the situation of India, which is much more populous, has a lot more languages and religions, but remained reasonably unified for the last 60 years.

by: Koba from: Washington, DC
April 27, 2009 13:20
I hope this will further stimulate and eventually bring down the Russian empire.
Restricting cultural and linguistic development of ethnic 'titular' minorities is never a good idea.

by: J from: US
April 26, 2009 14:28
To Ness and the likes- I would like to remind you of the contributions of Tatarstan to world Science. Key discoveries by Great Tatar mathematician Lobachevsky, the Famous Tatar organic chemists Butlerov, Markovnikov were made in Kazan. And lastly, Lenin himself was educated at the Tatar National University of Kazan. Well... maybe in part , since he was expelled.

by: J from: US
April 26, 2009 12:59
It is unclear to me what European Union has to do with non-European (Asian) parts of Russia. Is EU in a position to spend money on Finno-Ugric people under current economic conditions? Wouldn't it be wiser to rescue the Finno-Ugric nations of Estonia and Hungary, currently on the brink of economic/financial disaster? Finno-Ugric people have been doing fine for hundreds of years under Tsarist Russia, Lenin, then Stalin and I don't see what is missing from their lives in today's Russian Federation.

by: Jake from: Wisconsin
April 26, 2009 03:10
The Middle Volga is lining up to become a massive, 21st-century Bosnia. I certainly hope I'm wrong (and probably am), but the idea of even Tatars or Bashkirs -- much less non-Muslim Chuvash and Finnic peoples -- seceeding from Russia isn't insane anymore if even sober analysts like Goble and RFE/RL are open to discussing the possibility.

If you're old enough, think back just twenty years. Bosnians didn't scramble for independence like Slovenia and Croatia in 1991. It was all but forced on them a year later by the chorus of lunacy from Milosevic and Tudjman. Bosnians who couldn't stop laughing at the idea of secession in 1990 (that is, most of them) reassessed it as either sensible or at least the less awful of two horrible options by 1992.

Now consider the Tatars and Bashkirs today. The thought of a Muslim state in the heart of Russia is no less farfetched now than a Muslim state in the mid-Balkans seemed in the late 80s. But if populist-nationalism drives Kremlin policy, then what other response can there be?

The false security of logical, rational arguments against the worst-case scenario failed everyone in 1992. The lack of distinct ethnic boundaries and consequent inevitability of ethnic cleansing and genocide are no guarantee against a Volga War: the local communities knew all this in Bosnia too, and it stopped nothing. Years of coexistence and intermarriage won't matter either: Chetniks and Ustashi saw existential threats to Orthodox/Slavic civilization in their Muslim neighbors, and Russian DPNI thugs now see the same threat in their Tatar and Bashkir neighbors (Ness, in this very thread, implies that they are "immigrants"). Kazan is a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional city of great culture and history, as was Sarajevo. The brutality of a Russian reaction is no less inevitable than a brutal Serb reaction was then. The list goes on.

Yes, it's paranoiacally insane. If history is a guide, its insanity makes the scenario more, not less, likely.

by: Andrew from: Auckland
April 25, 2009 05:25
To Ness,

Obviously you are not one of the ethnic minorities that are native to those areas.
Since you are obvioulsy a Russian bigot I will spell it out to you.
Denying these ancient cultures the basic human right of having their own cultures taught and respected in their own historical lands is stupidity of the highest order and will do more damage to Russia than any other act I can think of.
All you and Russians like you are doing is creating a new round of separatism (for ethnic survival of the minorities) as you did in the 80's with the attempted supression of the Georgian, Ukrainian, and Latvian, Estonian, & Lithuanian languages and cultures.

by: Ray from: USA
April 25, 2009 03:14
In early 1960th I met in New York a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and discussed with him many issues of national cultures
Of the Soviet republics. To my question whether there ever be one Soviet People, the Soviet scientist answered that it was really the policy of the Central Committee of Communist Party of the Soviet Union to create one Soviet nation, but, he said, reality was different. "On the contrary", he said, "all Soviet nations are trying to preserve their cultural identies, languages including". We know what happened to the Soviet Union. The same fate may meet Russian Federation if it tries to
erase national identies of its
federated republics.

by: Steven from: Texas
April 25, 2009 00:53
Your comparison of assimilation in the US to the situation in Russia is illogical. The Turkic and Finno-Ugric peoples of the Russian federation are not immigrants.
While I will be the first to admit that the US has shoddy history in respect to its treatment of Native Americans, at least today we allow native and language cultural education in the reservation schools.
Your belief that teaching the Finno-Ugric population their culture and language will serve to divide Russia and create a parallel culture is laughable. In order for these various groups to economically survive within Russia, they have to speak Russian. So the threat is an imagined one that is created from a fevered, paranoid mind.

by: Ness from: Moscow
April 24, 2009 15:20
Very cool smart thinking by the pragmatic federal government. There is no need to support elements, that divide us in Russian Federation. USA would be a good example, where they manage to and do a good job of assimilating significant immigrant minorities into the population mass.
I understand the desire of the EU and US to create stronger divisions within Russian Federation, to fuel and exploit tensions, of which ethnic division, in my view, is the greatest. Nothing is wrong with that -- it's a natural competition. However, that is why it is of a critical importance for us to recognize and react to our possible weaknesses, which might be dismissed as of a lower priority and insignificant at the moment, but if left brewing for decades, they could spell the end of the Russian Federation. And again, in my view, that's what the EU/USA is banking on when they offer so-called "cultural aid." How kind of them, indeed.
     
TEXT SIZE - +

Products and services:

RSSMail SubscriptionMobile