On December 25, 1993, Mikhail Gorbachev declared his resignation as the USSR's president. The fall of the USSR gave birth to 15 independent countries on the world map. The countries have been reconsidering Soviet and pre-Soviet history. The preservation and bequeathing of common historical recollection, restoration of professional communications between historians in Russia and countries of the post-Soviet space has become quite a topical problem today. Preservation of common educational and civilization space faces many barriers associated with domination of stereotypes and negative images of Russia and its neighbours in the information space.
The issue today is establishment of new platforms for collaboration of professional historians, searches for common grounds and prevention of "blank spots." Ismail Agakishiyev, the head of the Lomonosov MSU Center for Caucasus Studies, and Alisher Sabirov, the head of the Center for Contemporary History Studies of Uzbekistan, have found such a platform at Vestnik Kavkaza and discussed the topic. Vestnik Kavkaza Editor-in-Chief Maria Sidelnikova was the moderator of their conversation.
Sidelnikova: The first question to both guests. What is your impression about the state of the modern history schools of Russia and Uzbekistan?
Sabirov: Gaining independence, our country has been paying great attention to history. Our president said that there was no future without history. Historians have set a serious goal: reconsideration of the path we have travelled. We had rich experience of historical research, whole institutes were working and work on it. Gaining independence, we have reconsidered the methodology of researches, reconsidered the topic in terms of today. Because the Soviet approaches were not fully impartial. There were a lot of forbidden topics, blank spots that needed working on.
In the Soviet period, research in certain areas was discouraged or sometimes forbidden. Let's say, the period of repressions. The colonial period and contemporary history have not been fully researched. Many national history schools view contemporary history from the period of gaining independence. We have discussed the problem with colleagues at different conferences and symposiums many times and our opinions have coincided that the contemporary history of Uzbekistan is the history of independence that includes a period before independence. In 1989, powerful processes of a socio-economic, political nature started in Uzbekistan. In 1991 we became independent. There was a complicated process for 2-3 years before that, it needs serious research too. Young people need to know how it was happening, because a lot of mystifications have appeared in history in Russia and in Uzbekistan.
Historians in Uzbekistan are working on the ancient and primordial history of Uzbekistan today, we carry out archeological expeditions, the history of the Central Asian khanates is studied: the Emirate of Bukhara, the Khanate of Kokand, the Khanate of Khiva. It is a very controversial period in the history of our nation. Of course, it isa history of colonization. Here, I must admit, we have slight disagreements with our Russian colleagues. it is understandable. Science is science, it cannot do without discussions. Some of our Russian colleagues focus attention on, as they say, the progressive approach, what the peoples of Central Asia achieved in the colonization process, such a culturological approach of theirs. Although the term "culture" can be treated differently. Some of our unserious historians, mostly journalists in Uzbekistan, have treated it somewhat perfunctorily, they focus more attention on topical aspects, negative aspects, blaming someone or something for everything. But that period has passed here.
Academic studies have been held, we have been preparing and we have started working in this area again. Several serious books on the history of Uzbekistan have been released, including a history of the khanates, a history of colonization, a history of the Soviet period - this is a second approach that needs very serious research.
Of course, we continue work on the Second World War, the involvement of Uzbekistan. The contribution of Uzbekistan and other brotherly nations to victory over fascism was significant.
The period of the second half of the 20th century, the 1960-1970s, the period of so-called stalemate, is very interesting, in our opinion. It was characterized by certain trends in Uzbekistan - cotton monoculture, repressions against Muslim clergy, religion, culture, a ban on our traditions. We have already gone through all that, we are studying it now. The late 1980s, the so-called period of Perestroika, needs serious and impartial studies. Independence was not granted as a gift. It was a hard struggle. The center put up powerful resistance. Centrifugal forces were intensifying. The period of independence is a controversial process too, it continues. Uzbekistan has its traditions of statehood, historical traditions. But the goal was to preserve the new, modern state. It was a very complicated path. Nonetheless, we have not given up our traditions, we studied them again, checked the possibilities of their application, we applied global experience. Gradually, we built a model we call the Uzbek development model. Everyone treats the term differently, but I think that it is unimportant how you treat the term, what matters is how the model works. In my opinion, it works fine. As an Uzbek inhabitant, I can say that it is one of the most stable societies, in political and economic terms.
The latest visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin to Uzbekistan shows this clearly. Our leaders have discussed further work very seriously. Uzbekistan has demonstrated again that it is a loyal ally. We have an agreement on strategic partnership with Russia, which we fully comply with. Russian political circles know it too. The process doubtlessly deserves scrupulous research.
Another approach is work on our history books. It is a complicated question for us and Russia. You still have discussions, debates about a common textbook. I do not know whether you have reached common grounds, there is plenty of information, I am somewhat confused. I think I am not the only one confused.
We had a systematic approach from the very start, though there were many mistakes. In the early 1990s, a set of textbooks was published, they were far from having an educational or historical component. Maybe it was such a time, such people. But we have gradually reconsidered, many textbooks were scrapped, we started working on them again. Our Center is a state organization now, it is part of the Ministry for Higher and Secondary Specialized Education, we were given an opportunity to evaluate and monitor all history books at school, colleagues, lyceés and higher education centers. You have a three-level education system - the nine-year school, then either a compulsory lyceé or a college of choice, a secondary specialized one for certain, and then the third level is higher education, there is also post-higher education - master's or doctorates. At all steps of educational development, we need history books. Many books have been revamped.
Academicians take part in composing the textbooks. I think a history book should not be written by one author. It needs at least three authors. One of the authors should be a skilled teacher with great experience in teaching the discipline at a higher education center, at school. The second one should be a very skilled methodologist who knows how to teach, how to present the material of a textbook. The third one is an academician of historical sciences who should fill the textbook with new data, new facts, new results of research.
Textbooks are not just adopted. We are under state control. We have state educational standards, including the volume of a textbook, the colour of a textbook. It should be light, fit into a bag. And its content, of course. Only a textbook that won a contest is allowed to be published, there are always several alternative variants.
We have recently published a collective monograph, "A History of Independent Uzbekistan" which we want to use to create a textbook variant for the higher education system.
I would like to note that we are on the threshold of a big festival, the 70th anniversary of the Great Victory. This period deserves coverage. We are working on it together with our colleagues from the RSUH, creating a scientific and publicistic monograph under the conventional title "Commonwealth of Nations in the Name of Victory", where we tried to demonstrate the big contribution of our republic to the victory over fascism. This and the contribution on the frontline. Many divisions and brigades were formed on the territory of Uzbekistan, including national divisions. Many enterprises manufacturing products there were evacuated. And finally, very many people were evacuated, especially children. Many families in Uzbekistan were taking in children for upbringing, saving them, we can say, from death. Many intellectuals were living in Tashkent during the war. No wonder the term "Tashkent Athens" appeared. Academician Nechkin said it. She was working in Tashkent during the evacuation, she created a very serious work about a revolt in 1916.
She was not the only one, there was Akhmatova and others. We want to depict all those interesting moments in this new monograph. It will be a collective monograph with our Russian colleagues, and we will try to publish it before the great festival.
Sidelnikova: A question to our guest from Moscow University. What is the state of the modern Russian school?
Agakishiyev: I am representing the History Faculty of the M.V. Lomonosov MSU, I am proud to say that the MSU History Faculty was the leader in historical science in Soviet times and remains the leader today. Many notable historians of the post-Soviet space and in other parts of the world graduated from the History Faculty. The House of Students on Vernadsky [Avenue] amd the "glasshouse [education corps]" remains a home and a sacred temple for thousands of people living in different parts of the country today. Today, the history school is developing very actively. One of the main trends is the use of collective methods in history. Academician Kovalchenko was the forefather of the school. The achievements of biology are widespread for identifying the genetics of a certain historical individual. So, today, we can say that historical science uses the results of historians' research and develops simultaneously with the application of achievements of other sciences: biology, mathematics and so on.
In the last 50 years, the History Faculty has created a subdepartment of near-abroad history for the first time, I am a teacher there. For the first time, they started studying the histories of the countries that had been a part of the Soviet Union and are now independent states. Simultaneously with history, the languages of the nations are being taught.
The history of a certain state or nation should be studied simultaneously with the histories of neighbouring peoples, with the histories of neighbouring states, to get a full picture when analyzing an event. We know that the main questions in history are not "what", "where", "when", the main question is "why". To answer the question "why", we need to use and know the histories of neighbouring states, we need to know more languages.
Studying the history of the Medieval Age requires knowledge of 5-10 languages, because the sources were written in different languages. Today, studying the histories of the countries of the near-abroad requires knowledge of the languages of the peoples of the countries. For example, Uzbek, Azerbaijani, Kazakh, Georgian and others. Overall, we specialize in 15 countries.
New countries are forming in post-Soviet space, where national consciousness and national interests are being highlighted. Many works dedicated to contemporary history are published, they are not always free from unjustified emotional evaluations and conclusions. But emotions will be gone, science will remain.
We cannot engage in Neo-Bolshevism, "raize everything to the ground and then...", in the spiritual values of the Soviet period. You cannot create anything more advanced at a minus or nil. It is better to create only if we can base it on what was created by our ancestors during the years of Soviet power and earlier. For example, you cannot deny the great role Russia played in establishing secular intellectuals. Of course, Ulemas in Uzbekistan played a great role in understanding Islam. In the late 19th - early 20th centuries, the population of Central Asia was identifying itself according to its religious and ethnic origins. The language of literature appeared, books based on it were published, you could easily go to Turkey, Azerbaijan, Central Asia. Intellectuals understood the language, read, it was all in the Arabic alphabet, the nations gave it all up when they gained independence. Then there was latin, then Joseph Vissarionovich [Stalin] gifted everyone Cyrillic. And every nation started developing their own language of literature. Today, we need to return to what united us in the spiritual and educational space, probably by preserving and developing all the native, special things.
I would like to note that sometimes we continue to teach myths instead of real history. Speaking of textbooks published in Soviet times, we read there that the ancient Kievans were constantly at war with the Pechenegs and Cumans. In reality, the Pechenegs and Cumans were Kipchaks, that is Kipchak, Turkic tribes who lived on the plains together with eastern Slavs. But I assure you that they were not at war all the time, they were friends, marriages between Turkic and eastern Slav tribes were common. From the 6-8th centuries, kindred relations between Turkic and Slav peoples had been developing.
We talk about the Battle of the Neva but we do not talk about who helped Alexander Nevsky when the crusaders were on a conquest of Russia, Batu Khan's son was next to him. We do not talk about the state that managed to stop the crusades, the Golden Horde. Russian scientists have written about it, but it was not mentioned in textbooks.
We cannot deny that national schools, national universities and academies were created in the years of the Russian Empire, in the years of Soviet power. Other nations in other countries lack them. With all respect to the peoples of Iran, its territory lacks middle schools, universities, academies teaching in the Azerbaijani and Turkic languages. People can talk in their national language only at home. There are tens of millions of such people, but the Persian language remains the language of education there. All we have today, we have because of the education gained in a country some call "colonial". Ok, there was colonial policy that built factories, institutes, universities! Of course, there were repressions back then, and we need to talk about that too. However, there should be no generalization of everything, a solely negative evaluation. Overall, it does not reflect the actual realities of the studied period.
To be continued
