In mid-May an old debate with deep roots surfaced during a meeting of the Russian-Kyrgyz Expert-Advisory Council on History. The Russian scholars present, after having examined Kyrgyz history textbooks for 8th, 9th, and 10th-grade students, complained about the portrayal of the Soviet Union and the use of the term “colonialism” in reference to both the Russian Empire and the USSR that followed it.
“Using the term ‘colonialism’ is a fashion statement,” Andrei Bykov, a researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences said, as reported by Azattyk. “The younger generation perceives this term emotionally, as it has a negative connotation. If we replace ‘colonialism’ or ‘colonial policy’ with ‘administration’ and ‘administrative measures,’ then the negative connotation will no longer be present.”
It’s not only “the younger generation” that perceives the term “colonialism” emotionally. Since the Russian Empire’s first forays into Central Asia in the 19th century and all the way through the Soviet Union’s rule of the region, Moscow has wrestled with discomfort over the term “colonialism.”
“There is a very long tradition of Russians thinking that their empire was completely different from that of the British,” Adeeb Khalid, a professor of Asian Studies and History at Carleton College, told The Diplomat. “The Soviet self-understanding was that they are revolutionary, they’re not imperialists, and they are actually helping the people of Central Asia overcome the legacy of colonialism.”
But in his view, “the Russian Empire and the British Empire were very similar. The Soviet Union was a little bit, was something else.”
It’s a debate that historians continue to have. The past may be static, but history – our collective understanding of the past – is constantly evolving. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, there has been an upsurge of scholarly and public discourse and debate on colonialism in Central Asia during the Soviet period, and decolonization in the modern era.
Botakoz Kassymbekova, a professor of Eastern European History at the University of Zurich and a leading voice on decolonization in Central Asia, told The Diplomat that “the Soviet ideology presented colonialism as a capitalist enterprise. Russian colonialism was driven by the state, not business, but it was, and is still, colonialism.”
“There are elements of economic exploitation in Central Asia that look a lot like colonial exploitation,” Khalid said, echoing points raised by the Kyrgyz historians in Moscow, pushing back against their Russian colleagues requests. There are other elements of Soviet rule in Central Asia – such as a lack of independence and resettlement policies – that resemble most classic definitions of colonialism.
“But the Soviet state also mobilized its people in ways that colonial empires never did,” Khalid added. “You can really get into the weeds on that big academic debate.”
“Comparison is not only warranted but necessary,” Kassymbekova told The Diplomat. “The Russian state and academia denies its colonial past because the Soviet regime presented itself as anti-colonial and this is something that the current regime inherited from the Soviet state.”
Sitting above this academic debate is a universal reality.
“Today – and this applies to all post-Soviet states and not just post-Soviet states – history and politics are very deeply intertwined,” Khalid said.
This is most stark where official histories dominate narratives, open debate is more constrained, and governmental legitimacy is rooted in national historical metaphors. If legitimacy is tied to history, then exactly how that history is interpreted matters beyond conference rooms packed with historians.
“Why are today’s Russians so upset that the Soviet Union might be considered colonial? That has to do with, I suppose, today’s Russian national and political identity, rather than with the past,” Khalid explained.
“[Russia] needs a good imperial tale to legitimize its ongoing colonial violence,” Kassymbekova added, referring to the war in Ukraine.
In re-imaging its own past to serve its present needs, contemporary Russia has rehabilitated the Russian Empire and cherry-picked through the history of the Soviet Union to cast itself as an uninterrupted great power, and one unlike any other. If a nuanced discussion of history challenges that notion, Moscow seeks to silence it.
At the same time, as demonstrated by the debate at the recent Russian-Kyrgyz Expert-Advisory Council on History meeting, Kyrgyz historians have a voice in this conversation that cannot be overlooked. Although they were diplomatic, the Kyrgyz historians pushed back on the idea of ditching certain terms to suit political demands.
Kyrgyz historian, and author of an 8th-grade textbook, Tynchtykbek Chorotegin told Azattyk, “Of course, this is political pressure. It has both political and ideological significance. Therefore, we must reject it; it is against our sovereignty.”
Writing in The Moscow Times, Erica Marat – who has written for The Diplomat about decolonization in Central Asia – noted that “Russian historians appear detached from the intense debates on the legacies of Russian occupation currently unfolding in Central Asia, as well as unable to extract loyalty to Russian culture from academic communities in the region.”
Ultimately, whether Kyrgyz textbooks use the term “colonialism” or seek to fully contextualize the Soviet period – incorporating both its crimes and its triumphs – is a matter for Kyrgyzstan to sort out.
“As famous Kyrgyz writer Chingiz Aitmatov wrote, colonization starts with erasing the memory of the colonized,” Kassymbekova told The Diplomat, arguing that it is important for Kyrgyzstan to define its own history.
Aitmatov’s multilayered 1980 novel, “The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years,” wrestles with questions of modernity and memory, among other themes. It contains a fictional folk tale of men made into mindless slaves – mankurt – who do not recognize their name, family, or tribe. Although the book was written during the Soviet period, and not necessarily written as a critique of the Soviet Union itself, Aitmatov’s word nevertheless provide a framework for understanding the interplay between memory, history, and meaning in Central Asia.
“People without a past, without memory, without history are weak, disoriented, powerless, and obedient,” Kassymbekova told The Diplomat. “Having a history that one studies and interprets is a form of agency; interpretation is a form of freedom, freedom to think, to know, understand and possibly act.”
