Paul Goble
Staunton,
December 21 – Vladimir Putin’s promotion of Russian at the expense of other
languages not only copies the policies of other countries he has criticized for
doing the same thing with the languages of their titular nationalities but puts
“a bomb under the federation” just as Soviet language policy did in the years
leading up to 1991, experts say.
Everyone
knows how that ended, but the powers that be appear oblivious to the
consequences of attacking the languages of the non-Russian republics of the
Russian Federation now, consequences that could have exactly the same effect of
blowing the country apart (rosbalt.ru/russia/2018/12/21/1754678.html and idelreal.org/a/29668946.html).
The
Rosbalt Political Club of experts met this week to discuss Putin’s law
eliminating required instruction in the titular languages of the non-Russian
republics while keeping the study of Russian there obligatory and to consider the
implications of legislation that only now is being implemented. Rosbalt’s
Aleksandr Zhelenin reports on their arguments.
“At the very
beginning of the discussion,” he points out, “it was noted that the Russian authorities
with this law are in large measure following the path that the authorities of
the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union did. And that this led to two collapses
of the state in the 20th century, in 1917 and in 1991.”
Commentator
and activist Maksim Shevchenko said that Putin’s law will in fact “lead to the
destruction of national self-consciousness. An individual has the right to feel
himself a Russian, a Ukrainian, a Chechen or a Tatar, and when he is forced not
to feel the way that he does, this is called repression.”
According
to him, the struggle for language rights is “part of the struggle for freedom
and democratic principles” and as such is “in the interests of the ethnic Russian
people.” Consequently, “all Russian
patriots should support our Tatar, Sakha, Chechen and other brothers in their
struggle not to be assimilated into that uncertain community which the ruling
elites of Russia are trying to put in place of the nationalities.”
Ruslan
Aysin, head of Tatarstan’s TatPolit firm, says that “formally” Putin’s law
doesn’t end instruction in the non-Russian languages but it will ultimately
have that effect: If schools don’t offer the language, universities won’t train
teachers, and there won’t be anyone to teach. Moreover, with language training
in the universities, the non-Russian nations will suffer.
The
Tatar expert adds that the reduction in non-Russian languages has been going on
for “a long time.” Moscow’s requirement that school-leaving tests be in Russia
and the elimination of the national component in all schools all set the stage
for this next move against the non-Russian languages.
And Aysin pointedly notes that Russian
officials “regularly raise questions about instruction in Russian in the Baltic
countries and in Ukraine” without acknowledging that they are doing “exactly” the
same thing.” He says, Zhelenin reports, that “this is called a policy of double
standards,” precisely what Moscow is always complaining about.
Beslan Uspanov, a journalist from
the North Caucasus, says that Putin’s policies have as yet had little additional
impact in his region because in some republics, like Chechnya and Ingushetia, representatives
of the titular nationality form a significant majority, while in others, the
members of the titular nationality are in a minority.
Unfortunately, the current situation
in which pupils receive native language instruction for only an hour or two a
week does little to save the languages, given the dominance of the Russian-language
media and the obvious advantages to some in learning that language well rather
than retaining their own.
And Platon Shamayev, a Sakha lawyer,
says that the situation with regard to non-Russian languages is especially
worrisome because many children, although members of the titular nationality,
come to school without a basic knowledge of their national languages. Without
special help, they may lose them altogether.
According to Zhelenin, those taking part
in the meeting “recalled that the disintegration of the Soviet Union began in
large measure as a result of problems involving native language instruction in
the national republics.” Earlier these languages had enjoyed some support but
by the 1990s, they were losing it.
“How all that ended is quite well known,” he concludes.
No comments:
Post a Comment