Paul Goble
Staunton,
February 1 – The Russian government’s refusal to allow for an honest discussion
of the Chechen wars not only is ensuring that memories about the war will
remain divided and divisive but also makes it likely that the Chechens and the
Russians will fight yet another war in the future, Valentina Tanaylova says.
Memories
of armed conflicts typically last a long time, the Moscow scholar who has
examined the politics of memory in the North Caucasus says, and “the war in
Chechnya is no exception … Memories about the war are alive and cast a shadow
on the relations of the two communities to this day” (ej.ru/?a=note&id=33397).
Instead of the two
sides as a result of honest public discussion of what happened coming together
and genuinely sharing a common narrative, each is increasingly retreating into
its own narrative, one that rejects the position of the other side and gives
aid and comfort to those Chechen and Russian who want to resume the fight.
“I think,” Tanaylova says, “that the
situation can and must change,” but for that to happen, “conditions must be
created for the public and open discussion of the consequences of the war and
the problems which it left behind.” Such conditions do not now exist, and
Moscow shows no sign of being willing to create them.
“The official version about the restoration
of the constitutional order in the Chechen Republic and about the counter-terrorist
operations on the territory of the North Caucasus region for many Chechens is
the ‘Russian’ version,” one they do not share because it ignores their role on
both sides and on the problems that aren’t addressed because they can’t be
discussed.
It is the case that “the popularity
of Ramzan Kadyrov on the whole is constantly growing,” but he is viewed by many
as nothing more than the Kremlin’s man on the scene. Consequently, Chechens
ever more often say that “they ‘love and respect’ the head of the republic or fear
to say otherwise.”
But Kadyrov’s popularity as measured
by polls has done nothing to reduce those holding opposing views. Many Chechen
sites feature articles about Kadyrov as “a traitor” to the Chechen people, as
someone who “sold out” to the Kremlin, and who will forever be covered with
shame as far as Chechens are concerned.
Indeed, “in recent years,” the
number of sites calling for Independence for Chechnya has increased not fallen,
and that has the effect of keeping “the theme of war and struggle” very much
alive. To be sure, those who put up these sites remain on the defensive, as
they can be taken down, but they have learned how to have reserves so the
authorities can’t do so easily.
“Under such conditions,” Tanaylova
says, “the preservation of memory about the wars and conflicts has been
transformed into yet another form of struggle.” These sites talk about not only
the past war but the ways in which the struggle must continue given Russian
oppression of the Chechens now.
And perhaps most important, they prompt
the question among Chechens: “Why and how should they become part of the civil
society and the state, the struggle with which is natural and reflects the historically
existing order of things?”
Those questions are being asked ever
more frequently as a result of the media treatment of the war from the Russian
perspective. Ever more often, articles in the official press say that the wars
were about “’putting the Chechens in their place,’” “’showing who is who,’” and
most dangerously referring to “the war not in
Chechnya but with Chechnya and with
the Chechens.”
One Chechen who lived through both
wars told Tanaylova that “of course, I am for peace … but this is our war, the
memory of which no one can take from us even though the Russians want that we
should forget … Unfortunately, it is easy to begin a war but hard to end it. [And]
even in rebuilt Grozny, the smell of war continues.”
Such observations do not generate
optimism, the scholar says. “Many
Chechens say that they want to be heard, understood and recognized. They want
to hear about why there was such an enormous number of peaceful civilians among
the victims of the military campaigns.”
But no one wants to allow them to speak of this.
Unfortunately, the Russian powers
that be do not want the Russians who were involved to talk about the war
either. “Many [Russian] veterans of the war in Chechnya complain that they do
not have the right to officially mark The Day of Memory of the Fallen. They
have to remember their fellow soldiers in private.”
Much could be done to overcome the
divide if people would be allowed to talk about the past openly and wish each other,
but “the present Russian political regime is not in a position to propose new
variants for a public and constructive dialogue.” That is something it and both
Chechens and Russians may come to regret.
Chechen leader Aslan Maskhadov once said that
his grandchildren most likely will also have to fight. Despite the fact that it
seems to many that ‘the Chechen question’ was closed long ago,” Tanoylova says,
“the probability that Maskhadov’s words will turn out to be prophetic all the
same continues to exist.”
No comments:
Post a Comment