The sons and their choices By Usam Baysayev, special to Prague Watchdog
Oslo, Norway
It is sometimes interesting to speculate about which of the names linked with today’s conflict in the North Caucasus will remain in the memory of future generations. Russian historians are already writing about that conflict more or less in the same way as, a century and half ago, they wrote about the Caucasus War of 1817-1864. It was all, they say – just as they did then – a result of the policies of hostile powers, and the whole thing was made much worse by the actions of adventurers and local religious fanatics. Ordinary people, who were illiterate, believed the historians. The process of "enlightenment" by Russia, though long and bloody, was supposedly a step forward, as Chechens gained access to a great civilization and were able to discover the world and let it discover them.
Inevitably, because of its imperial nature, this interpretation defined Russia’s aims in the region as those of a civilizer: Russia was bringing light to dark mountain gorges steeped in ignorance and superstition. Therefore anyone who resisted was a predator, a villain or a reactionary: the derogatory labels used today are not much better – bandit, terrorist, Islamist. The military and press reports of the time often included the real names of these men. “The predator Beybulat and his party," for example. Or: "The false prophet Kazi-Mulla, who calls for jihad in the mosques...” Albeit in such a form, those names are inscribed in the historical documents, and have not been forgotten.
In those days, too, Russia had many allies among the Caucasus’s inhabitants. Its army contained entire detachments made up of local tribesmen – the so-called irregular units, which also included Chechens. The history books have little or nothing to say about them. We know only about a dozen names of people who, going against their customs, traditions and religion, collaborated with the conquerors, with those who had murdered or exiled the men who were really their brothers. So, if they are mentioned anywhere, it is only very briefly and matter-of-factly, sometimes under a single generic name, like "Highland militia”. Or "riff-raff”, as in the memoirs of General Alexey Yermolov.
I do not think there is any contradiction here. A worthy, single-minded enemy was always respected, and still is, though the respect is often mixed with hatred. Those who are subservient to another’s will, who are dependent, ready to placate any whim or carry out any order – they are deeply uninteresting, even to those whom they serve. Instead of dying in battle, being hanged or shot after the war was over, many of them managed to end their days in a state of satiety and prosperity. If their names do appear, then, as a rule, it is only in the title deeds of the land they took from their fellow tribesmen.
By vanishing in the fog of history, leaving no trace in it, these people performed their greatest deed – before those who came after them. I knew one family in which all the young men fought against the Russians in the first Chechen war. They were not enthusiastic supporters of Chechen independence. It was simply that as children they had been shunned by their peers because of their grandfather, who in the 1930s had earned the reputation of being an informer. The war gave them the opportunity to cleanse themselves of a past that was not their own, to stand on a par with the rest.
If the grandfather had not lived so long, his “deeds” would probably have been forgotten together with him, and my friends – his descendants – might have had more freedom to choose. They could have gone off to fight, or they could have stayed at home – it would all have depended on them, on their wishes and personal convictions.
Human memory is not a work of history written by study and analysis in accordance with state ideology. It is capable of rejecting the emotions and experiences of many thousands of men, women, children and old folk. At its core it is almost always illogical. It is based on the human principle of choice – was he "ours" or "theirs"?
The one who was “ours” is the one who was there on our side when we were being shot at, beaten or humiliated. The one who was “theirs” is the one who stood on the other side of the barricades together with the people who caused all this.
But memory has its limits. It is not tons and kilometres of paper that can be filled with minute detail and then packed away, stuffed into bookshelves or state archives. Its seat is the human brain, which can shut out many things if it wants to. So in Chechnya it threw out the people who were “theirs”, and the empty space became occupied almost entirely by those who were "ours", and their often mythologized actions.
The famous early 20th century Chechen abrek [robber] Zelimkhan Gushmazukayev brought misfortune to many in his day. He killed officials of the tsarist forces, and ordinary Chechens and Ingush suffered as a result. The inhabitants of whole villages where he had stayed only a single night were deported. Russia's methods of punishment differed little then from the ones it uses today: the aim is to strike at the innocent in order to stir up hatred of the resistance. Driven to desperation by the repression of the authorities, some Chechens took part in Zelimkhan’s capture. His death at their hands allowed his people some respite from persecution.
The years passed, however, and the misery that Zelimkhan brought upon his countrymen was erased from memory. What remained was the recollection of his courage. He was on the side of the victims! That alone was enough to make his name revered by his compatriots down the decades. While the names of his Chechen pursuers are almost forgotten, except to the historians.
Picture: abrek.at.ua.
(Translation by DM) (P,DM)
DISCUSSION FORUM
|
