Will local identity help us?
What is local identity? How does it relate, for example, to national identity? These questions are unavoidable when we discuss future transformations in Russia, when they become possible. Will local communities be able to peacefully coexist in a country home to many large and small ethnic groups, in a country where regional borders do not coincide with federal boundaries, where local traditions accepted in one region may conflict with the values of people living in another?
How can we ensure that, instead of an empire that has undergone several transformations but remains an empire, people can develop their local and national cultures and feel that both themselves and others are equal citizens. This is what they're talking about. Farida Kurbangaleeva, head of the fund Free Buryatia Alexandra Garmazhapova and a historian and a philosopher Mikhail Nemtsev.
FARIDA KURBANGALEEVA
The process of stripping people of their national and distinct local identities in Russia has been going on for decades, even centuries. And now, among other things, the Russian state is attempting to erase Ukrainian identity as well. Why do you think it's so important to preserve both national and regional identities?
MIKHAIL NEMTSEV
I'll start with a big philosophical generalization. The classics of philosophy teach us that there is life, and there is a good life, a good life. A full, truly human life implies that, in addition to the body, each of us also has something else, in what we live, with what We live by what is important to us. Pushkin wrote: "Two feelings are wonderfully close to us. In them the heart finds nourishment: love for the ashes of our native land, love for the graves of our fathers." There are different types of social identity—regional, ethnic, for some, religious, professional, and, for those fortunate enough to belong to a professional community, national. The more layers of identity there are, the more space a person has for living. It's important for people to remember that they are not just part of their family; they are part of a clan, part of a local community, part of a nation, culture, language, and so on.
Some people begin to wrap their identity in various emotions: pride, contempt for others, and so on. But I'm not talking about such more or less pathological cases, but about the completely ordinary situation where people live on the land, and besides them, their ancestors and future generations live on that same land. If all these layers of superstructure over everyday life are preserved, life is good. If they are destroyed, a person becomes poor. Therefore, what you're talking about is overcoming the poverty of life.
FARIDA KURBANGALEEVA
I know personally, from my native republic, that the study of ethnic languages evoked enormous resistance from Russians living in ethnic regions. During my Soviet childhood, we had Tatar language lessons, I think, once a week. This lesson was always the last one on the schedule, and when a group of Tatars went to study their native language, the Russian children either took a more simplified regional studies class or went home. You can imagine how the Tatars felt about the Tatar language, the teacher, and such a burden—that's exactly how it felt. How can ethnic languages be preserved in ethnic republics? What are the risks of erasing both national and regional identities?
ALEXANDRA GARMAZHAPOV
I would agree with Alexei Navalny here, who, before his death in prison, wrote to his friends that he had, as he put it, moved left over time and didn't understand what was wrong with the regions studying local languages, or with me knowing at least a hundred words in Chuvash. On the contrary, it's a treasure. A sterile, monotonous society, and the planet in general, it seems to me, is a lifeless planet.
I used to have a more tolerant attitude towards this. I wondered why a Russian should learn a language they don't really need. Why do Buryats learn Russian? It seems logical to me, if you follow the logic that Russian nationalists are trying to push. The key issue, I think, isn't just about teaching, but that the language isn't used everywhere. For example, in Buryatia, including after we became pay attention In response to the fact that the Buryats are fighting in Ukraine for the Russian world, for the Russian language, without knowing Buryat, much attention has begun to be paid to the Buryat language.
The whole thing has been launched reality show, o importance Its study is spoken everywhere. But the problem is that this language is practically not used anywhere.
We witnessed in the Komi Republic how an activist, specifically language activist Alexei Ivanov, wanted to speak his native Komi language in court, and the judge declared he was putting on a circus and needed an interpreter. He responded, "You need an interpreter, because I'm in the Komi Republic and I speak Komi." It's very telling that a judge, a civil servant, would call the desire to use his native language a circus.
FARIDA KURBANGALEEVA
There's always this argument: why do we need this language? Speak it at home. But people who speak it at home also ask, why do we need this language if I go out and my Russian friend Vanya, Petya, or Sasha can never hold a conversation with me. Consequently, the language doesn't develop, and there's no incentive to learn it.
ALEXANDRA GARMAZHAPOV
Sometimes there are interesting examples: the head of the Republic of Buryatia Alexey Tsydenov, an ethnic Buryat, categorically does not speak the Buryat language, and the head of the People's Khural, the parliament, Vladimir Pavlov, being an ethnic Russian, speaks Buryat perfectly. And the first president of Buryatia Leonid Potapov He was also an ethnic Russian and spoke Buryat fluently. Sometimes it's not so much an ethnic factor as the environment in which a person was born and raised.
FARIDA KURBANGALEEVA
Mikhail, in your opinion, how can national languages be preserved, and should Russians living in a national region also learn the language of, so to speak, the titular ethnic group?
MIKHAIL NEMTSEV
You're asking a question that millions of people around the world are facing. Preserving the languages of small peoples—"small" is term from Russian legislation—which have few bearers—is generally one of the most complex problems facing humanity today. It exists on every continent, even in Europe. It's not visible from the outside, but, for example, in Germany, dialects German. This is a problem of modern civilization; it's not at all limited to how the Russian Federation's language policy is structured in certain regions. And it's not just a matter of who you speak the language with.
Knowing a language can be prestigious. This happens, for example, when art exists in that language, when opinion leaders and influential people speak it—when that's cool. It's like going out on the street and knowing you speak a language that, generally speaking, few people here speak, but many would like to. And it's a question of cultural policy how to do that. There are language activists locally. There may be people interested in preserving their language, in its development. This means they'll write songs in that language, stage theatrical performances. They'll create their own unique products. Access to these products is purchased at the price of knowing the language. And that's cool.
I recently decided to listen to a lecture by a professor from Izhevsk State University, and it turned out he was giving them in Udmurt, which I couldn't listen to. I discovered that the Udmurt language is actually very well represented on YouTube. This is important because it's becoming accessible not just within the Russian Federation, but to the entire world. And those who spend time and effort recording these videos, interviewing each other, are elevating the language to a new level of existence. But these are always a small number of people. If such people are found and are willing to engage with the language, then the language has some potential.
They're faced with a lack of infrastructure. Textbooks aren't written, or they're poorly written. There are no publications willing to publish these works. Schools tell them, "We already have so much work to do, and you've come to demand more from us." To ensure infrastructure, we need national and regional policies to support local initiatives.
There are languages that few people are interested in: there are only a few thousand actual and potential speakers. So what's their solution? They can learn from each other, but how will they expand beyond their small group? It's a different story with republics, where there are millions of potential and actual speakers. Tatarstan has a larger population than some countries in the world. Therefore, I think the most important condition is the presence of a group of enthusiasts who will do this—at their own expense, in their free time, good or bad—but they will do it and attract others. And we need some kind of well-thought-out cultural policy that makes knowledge of a language prestigious.
FARIDA KURBANGALEEVA
That is, it is necessary to create conditions so that people want to learn the language.
MIKHAIL NEMTSEV
Yes. Perhaps we'll reach a simple, yet not obvious, conclusion: the state must ensure people have the opportunity to do this. They exercise their civil rights and develop their national culture, and the state is obligated not to interfere with them, but also to facilitate them. And this is precisely what requires a dedicated cultural policy at the national, federal, and local community and municipal levels. Thus, the question of language proficiency becomes a political issue: how should domestic policy be structured?
And in this wonderful Russia of the future you're talking about, it's entirely possible to imagine that knowing the languages of the peoples of the places you're from will be an advantage. They'll put it on your resume. I know Udmurt, that's awesome.
FARIDA KURBANGALEEVA
With national identity, which, of course, survives primarily thanks to language, everything is more or less clear. But what about regional identity? What is it? The notorious Ingria in northwestern Russia. People who live there consider this to be a distinct identity.
ALEXANDRA GARMAZHAPOV
Every person has multiple identities. My ethnic identity is Buryat, but my regional identity is St. Petersburg, where I grew up. So, for me, it was equally offensive when I heard, at the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, that all Buryats were savages, bloodthirsty, and terrible. And when the pendulum swung a little in the other direction, I heard from some radical decolonial activists that everyone in St. Petersburg was racist. I felt like they were trying to tell me that my first teacher, my professors at university, my classmates—they were all racist. It's crucial to acknowledge these identities, respect them, and understand that regional identity may even play a greater role than ethnic identity.
MIKHAIL NEMTSEV
We must first define what a region is. In Russia, many federal subjects are smaller than the region they lie in. For example, Siberia is very large. There are two, three, or even four Siberias, depending on how you divide it up. The idea of Siberia for people who grew up in the south of Western Siberia, in Altai, like me, and those who grew up in Norilsk, or someone from the steppes of Transbaikal, are all different Siberias. But at the same time, there is a vast territory called Siberia. We can talk about two or three types of Siberian identities that are larger than regions, meaning Altai Krai or Kemerovo Oblast are too small. The same could probably be said about the Urals, the Volga region, the Far East, or southern Russia.
Federal subjects emerged by chance. One of the most popular examples is the emergence of the Bryansk Region. It was carved out from territory where a fierce anti-partisan struggle was taking place. In 1944, the Bryansk Region was created to coordinate efforts to combat the anti-Soviet underground in the notorious Bryansk forests. And now such a region exists.
Regions have been formed as mental images, laden with emotions, symbols, and special local pride for 200 or 300 years. I think regional identity is primarily linked to these large territories. I can say first and foremost that I'm from Siberia, and secondly, from Altai. But this Altai isn't limited to the border of the Altai Krai. In my mind, it's structured differently. It's a kind of mental region. These are the boundaries we can rely on. Where these mental boundaries lie can be discussed separately. It's very interesting. But if we rely on them and hold on to them, then we can imagine how regional identity is formed. From these large regions, as it were, down to the ground.
ALEXANDRA GARMAZHAPOV
I agree that regions were often formed randomly. Depending on what Soviet officials wanted at a particular moment, perhaps. For example, we know the situation With Karachay-Cherkessia and Kabardino-Balkaria, where they were united according to the opposite principle. Or the Buryats, who are scattered across three regions and are a minority everywhere. We make up 30% of Buryatia's population, and they also live in the Irkutsk Region—formerly the Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug—and in the Zabaykalsky Krai—in the Agin-Buryat Autonomous Okrug. Redrawing borders is a rather complex and conflict-prone procedure. From this perspective, in the future, in addition to the regional parliament, a national cultural parliament will be necessary. Such a parliament exists in Belgium, he deals with issues of language and culture of a particular ethnic group.
MIKHAIL NEMTSEV
This is called national cultural autonomy.
FARIDA KURBANGALEEVA
Do you think the revision of regional borders is dangerous?
ALEXANDRA GARMAZHAPOV
I always remember Ingushetia and North Ossetia - the situation with Suburban areaWe recently interviewed an Ossetian Valeria Dzutsati And they asked how the territorial dispute between the Ossetians and Ingush should be resolved. He replied: "If I knew the answer, I would have become a millionaire long ago." This is a situation of the ultimate frozen conflict. If you communicate with either an Ossetian or an Ingush, you'll hear quite offensive remarks directed at each other, and this manifests itself very strongly in everyday life. From this example alone, we understand how explosive this topic is.
FARIDA KURBANGALEEVA
But we know examples of civilized divorces: Czechoslovakia, for example, disintegrated peacefully and bloodlessly into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and they now enjoy very good neighborly relations. Another issue concerns traditions that have been ingrained for centuries in certain ethnic regions, where, for example, polygamy is still practiced and Sharia courts exist. Each time, a contradiction arises: on the one hand, these regions go beyond the legal frameworkOn the other hand, it's also part of their national identity, which they can't give up. How will such issues be resolved in the beautiful Russia of the future?
MIKHAIL NEMTSEV
They conflict not with Russian legislation, but with Russia’s international obligations as a member of the UN. Universal Declaration of Human Rights — one of the fundamental documents of the UN. The second chapter of the Russian Constitution was written in accordance with international treaties and declarations. "Human and Civil Rights and Freedoms"There is the concept of human rights; it is universal and cannot be revised simply because, you know, we are a slightly different people; everything must be done differently here. Human rights are the fundamental basis of modern constitutionalism. In the beautiful Russia of the future, the constitution must, of course, be re-adopted, but its foundation is human rights, including equality before the law, the right to freedom, and so on. If national traditions do not require the abandonment of Chapter II of the Russian Constitution, they can exist.
When it comes to amendments, we need to consider whose interests they serve. Most often, human rights amendments in the Russian Federation are driven by the will of a particular group. If we're talking about polygamy, then this group likely consists of influential men who want to have multiple wives, preferably younger ones. They also want to marry their daughters to each other to strengthen their male brotherhood and bolster their family's authority. Accordingly, if such relationships are compatible with the principles of a secular, constitutional state, a social state that cares about human rights within its borders, then there's no problem. I believe this is the limit beyond which the state should not go.
For example, there is a terrible problem in different countries female circumcisionIn Russia it's the same offersIf you take the Declaration of Human Rights seriously, these customs must be suppressed, eradicated, or transformed into some kind of symbolic form. Not through violent surgical intervention, but through some equivalent symbolic action. Which, by the way, has been happening for centuries, because these traditions have never been some kind of ironclad standard.
FARIDA KURBANGALEEVA
Regarding circumcision, I completely agree with you, of course. And such a rule isn't even in the Quran. Certain specific interpretations allowed such a monstrous thing to emerge and be practiced. But let's say polygamy is prescribed in the Quran. And here we enter the very dangerous field of questions related to religion. There are regions where Islam is widely practiced, where it is the main religion. Such a rule existed, let's say, in the medieval way of life. This isn't necessarily a matter of pedophilia, I assure you. People live according to the Quran. And if we talk to them about human rights, about constitutional norms, will this lead to mutual understanding and harmony between this region and the rest of the country?
MIKHAIL NEMTSEV
I'm not talking about pedophilia, but human rights activists in Europe are helping to smuggle girls out of certain regions where they are forced into marriage, citing traditions and so on, and they risk their lives to flee. Of course, citing a venerable religious text deserves respect, but the reality is that the rights of certain groups of the population are being severely violated.
ALEXANDRA GARMAZHAPOV
Yes, rights are being severely violated, but it's important that this not look like an attempt to enter someone else's monastery—in this case, a mosque—in tarpaulin boots. When I began working on the North Caucasus, I had a very one-sided view, and I wrote some rather critical materials about polygamy and encountered a very negative reaction from ethnic Chechens living in Europe who oppose the current regime in Chechnya. They said that many men died during the Chechen wars, and that this was, among other things, necessary. Why are you even interfering in our internal order? And it was difficult to counter that. So, when I heard your logical words, I clearly imagined my opponents among the Chechens who criticize the current regime in Chechnya and who would categorically disagree with you.
MIKHAIL NEMTSEV
This is indeed a very serious conflict, but the discussion should then be about amendments to the Family Code, to inheritance laws, and about granting special, exclusive rights to certain groups based on their religion. We have the principle of equality before the law, and we must adhere to it. Federal law applies throughout the Russian Federation, and if it doesn't, then documents issued in one region won't be valid in another. Perhaps they'll want to move with their families to somewhere like St. Petersburg, because there's no longer a Sharia court there. And how will they resolve legal issues then?
ALEXANDRA GARMAZHAPOV
And here we smoothly came to the topic of federation.
FARIDA KURBANGALEEVA
We're approaching the question of the advisability of these regions coexisting at all. If these contradictions are so strong and intractable, and one way or another we're inevitably led to the federal center dictating how the region should live, forcing it to abandon certain traditions, the question arises whether coexistence is worthwhile.
ALEXANDRA GARMAZHAPOV
Mikhail started talking about how one region can have one law and another can have another. But there's the example of the United States of America, which is a federation. There, it's true, it's in one state. abortions are prohibited, and in another - no, in one state allowed Some types of drugs are legal, while others are not. This is precisely the nature of a federal existence, and it cannot be monolithic.
FARIDA KURBANGALEEVA: There are states that recognize There are those who recognize same-sex marriages, and there are those who don't. But both are the United States of America.
MIKHAIL NEMTSEV
There is a difference. Some conclude Some people enter into such marriages, while others don't. But if a family in a same-sex partnership moves to another state, they retain all their marital rights. This is a truly important issue, and not a far-fetched one. But I believe that human rights, that is, equality for all under Section II of the Russian Constitution, is the cornerstone of the existence of the Federation.
FARIDA KURBANGALEEVA
This discussion, which has unfolded among us even on one specific issue, demonstrates how long and arduous the road—with mutual compromises, listening to and respecting each other—is still to be traveled to reach a better solution if we want to preserve the country within its current borders and make it a true federation. There are great concerns that during the restructuring and reformatting of Russia, interethnic and interfaith conflicts will arise. We know many such examples in history. Among the most recent, we can recall Yugoslav wars, and the conflicts that took place on the territory former USSR In the former Soviet republics. Is it possible to carry out this reorganization, this reformatting, peacefully, bloodlessly?
MIKHAIL NEMTSEV
You see, people who have left Russia and are talking about its future are often unwilling to discuss two issues that will be fundamentally important at that moment. These are the economies of the new regions and security. Who controls the military units in the region, and who are they aligned with? People are ready to discuss identity, national symbols, borders, and national languages. But the question arises: if a certain portion of your population is pensioners, how can you ensure that pensions are paid during this reform process?
If you have strategic military facilities, nuclear warheads, warehouses, and ocean-going submarine ports on your territory, what will happen to them? I'll say right away that I believe there's a great danger in Russia. If this reformatting begins, we have a number of candidates to lead it. These won't be democrats; they'll be warlords. People like Prigozhin. Because of the ongoing war, there will be a certain number of people in Russia with connections and a willingness to use any forceful means. How to deal with them is the question.
There needs to be some kind of answer to these two fundamental questions before we even begin discussing future countries. I'm not saying I have one. I'm simply urging you to think about them. About pensions, about roads, about arsenals for city garrisons, about warheads, about what troops are stationed at the border, and whose orders they listen to. This is very complex. I don't see much discussion about this. Someone is drawing flags of future independent states. You have railways running through these future independent states. And it only takes a few hours to block a railway. So, if some people block them, what will you do with them? And yet, at that moment, this will be the most important thing. First, we need to have at least some kind of plan for the economic future. And a future connected to what is called security: the army, the police, the security agencies, and so on.
You were just talking about borders. Borders, generally speaking, are arbitrary. And it's not a given that they need to be revised at all. Because as soon as you revise one border situation, dissatisfied people immediately arise who want everything back. And then some other conflict pops up. Why? Let's look at Africa, for example. Africa experienced 30 years of colonial wars. Because the borders of African states were drawn up by people who had no personal stake in those borders; they didn't even live there. And now there are states in Africa with 16 national languages, like in Zimbabwe, which have complex regional parliaments and complex regional relations, but they don't generally fight among themselves over borders. They decided that we'll just live like this. Okay, the borders are wrong, but if we start revising them now, we'll be looking at another 15 years of fighting. We want to live in peace, develop, grow rich, and so on.
ALEXANDRA GARMAZHAPOV
I completely agree with Mikhail. I've seen many maps of future independent states, including the United States of Siberia (with an E). For example, I had a discussion with Ruslan GabbasovWhen I asked him what was wrong with a referendum, he said, "Yes, peoples have the right to self-determination. Let's hold a referendum with international observers and find out whether the residents of Bashkortostan want to live in an independent state." To which he replied, "Well, you know those vatniks will never vote for independence." And basically, my question was, who should decide for the residents of these republics? I still maintain that the future of, for example, the Republic of Buryatia should be determined by the residents of the Republic of Buryatia. And this doesn't depend on their ethnic origin. This is very important.
I often hear discussions about how these are all the descendants of colonizers. Firstly, colonization occurred several centuries ago. We need to analyze the process of colonization, we need to acknowledge that it happened, but at the same time, taking a completely victim-like position and attributing, for example, the participation of a certain number of Buryats in aggression against Ukraine to colonization that occurred several centuries ago is infantilism. Furthermore, among those living in Buryatia today, there are not only the descendants of colonizers, but also the descendants of Poles, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians who were exiled there and who didn't particularly dream of living there.
Federalization could involve a referendum, and if someone wants to live independently, why not? For example, the Danish Constitution stipulates that Greenland can declare its independence at any time. But Greenland doesn't do so because it benefits from being part of the Danish realm. We must ensure that these regions benefit more from being part of Russia than from independence. So far, the Russian Federation, given that we're all mired in this aggressive war against Ukraine, isn't doing a very good job of it, to put it mildly.
FARIDA KURBANGALEEVA
A separate episode of our podcast will be devoted to federalization. I believe the most logical answer to the question of what a true federation and proper federalization should be is this: it should take into account the rights and characteristics of both the national and regional identities of all groups of Russians. This is, perhaps, the logical conclusion of our conversation.
