Crimean Tatar civil rights movement

Last updated

Crimean Tatar civil rights movement
Part of the human rights movement in the Soviet Union
DateMay 1944 – 14 November 1989
Location
Uzbek and Tajik Soviet Socialist Republics
Crimean oblast
Caused by Deportation of the Crimean Tatars, Tatarophobia, De-Tatarization of Crimea
Methods Nonviolence, nonviolent resistance, civil disobedience
Resulted in Crimean Tatar repatriation

The Crimean Tatar civil rights movement was a loosely-organized movement in the second half of the 20th century among the Crimean Tatars, who were living in exile following their deportation from Crimea in May 1944. It had the primary goals of regaining recognition as a distinct ethnic group, the right to return to live in Crimea, and restoration of the Crimean ASSR. When the movement started in the 1950s, its leaders were exclusively Communist Party workers and Red Army veterans, who were confident that the Soviet Union would soon fully rehabilitate them in accordance with proper adherence to Leninist national policy. As decades passed and the party remained hostile to even the most basic requests from Crimean Tatar petitions and deletions, a split emerged in the movement; many youths who were deported as children gave up hope in communism and took issue with the Leninist line towed by leaders of the movement. Eventually in 1989 the Soviet government lifted the restrictions on moving to Crimea from all exiled Crimean Tatars, and began the rehabilitation process. Since then, in the period of a few years, over 200,000 Crimean Tatars returned to Crimea, but they continue to lack a national autonomy of their own in Crimea. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

Causes

Starting in 1944, Crimean Tatars lived mostly in Central Asia with the designation as "special settlers", meaning that they had few rights. "Special settlers" were forbidden from leaving small designated areas and had to frequently sign in at a commandant's office. [4] [5] [6] [7] Soviet propaganda directed towards Uzbeks depicted Crimean Tatars as threats to their homeland, and as a result there were many documented hate crimes against Crimean-Tatar civilians by Uzbek Communist loyalists. [8] [9] In the 1950s the "special settler" regime ended, but Crimean Tatars were still kept closely tethered to Central Asia; while other deported ethnic groups like the Chechens, Karachays, and Kalmyks were fully allowed to return to their native lands during the Khrushchev thaw, economic and political reasons combined with basic misconceptions and stereotypes about Crimean Tatars led to Moscow and Tashkent being reluctant to allow Crimean Tatars the same right of return; the same decree that rehabilitated other deported nations and restored their national republics urged Crimean Tatars who wanted a national republic to seek "national reunification" in the Tatar ASSR in lieu of restoration of the Crimean ASSR, much to the dismay of Crimean Tatars who bore no connection to or desire to "return" to Tatarstan. [9] [10] Moscow's refusal to allow a return was not only based on a desire to satisfy the new Russian settlers in Crimea, who were very hostile to the idea of a return and had been subject to lots of Tatarophobic propaganda, but for economic reasons: high productivity from Crimean Tatar workers in Central Asia meant that letting the diaspora return would take a toll on Soviet industrialization goals in Central Asia. [5] Historians have long noted that the violent resistance to confinement in exile from Chechens led to further willingness to let them return, [11] while the non-violent Crimean Tatar movement did not lead to any desire for Crimean Tatars to leave Central Asia. [11] In effect, the government was punishing Crimean Tatars for being Stakhanovites while rewarding the deported nations that contributed less to the building of socialism, creating further resentment. [12] [13]

A 1967 Soviet decree removed the charges against Crimean Tatars on paper while simultaneously referring to them not by their proper ethnonym but by the euphemism that eventually became standard of "citizens of Tatar nationality who formerly lived in Crimea", angering many Crimean Tatars who realized it meant they were not even seen as Crimean Tatars by the government. In addition, the Soviet government did nothing to facilitate their resettlement in Crimea and to make reparations for lost lives and confiscated property. [14] Before the mass return in the perestroika era, Crimean Tatars made up only 1.5% of Crimea's population, since government entities at all levels took a variety of measures beyond the already-debilitating residence permit system to keep them in Central Asia. [15] [16]

Methods

The abolition of the special settlement regime made it possible for Crimean Tatar rights activists to mobilize; initially, the primary method of raising grievances with the government was petitioning. Many for the right of return gained over 100,000 signatures; although other methods of protest were occasionally used, the movement remained completely non-violent. [17] [18] When only a small percentage of Crimean Tatars were allowed to return to Crimea, those who were not granted residence permits would return to Crimea and try to live under the radar. However, the lack of a residence permit resulted in a second deportation for them. [19]

A last-resort method to avoid a second deportation was self-immolation, famously used by Crimean Tatar national hero Musa Mamut, one of those who moved to Crimea without a residence permit. He doused himself with gasoline and committed self-immolation in front of police trying to deport him on 23 June 1978. Mamut died of severe burns several days later, but expressed no regret for having committed self-immolation. [20] Mamut posthumously became a symbol of Crimean Tatar resistance and nationhood, and remains celebrated by Crimean Tatars. [21] Other notable self-immolations in the name of the Crimean Tatar right of return movement include that of Shavkat Yarullin, who fatally committed self-immolation in front of a government building in protest in October 1989, and Seidamet Balji who attempted self-immolation while being deported from Crimea in December that year but survived. [22] Many other famous Crimean Tatars threatened government authorities with self-immolation if they continued to be ignored, including Hero of the Soviet Union Abdraim Reshidov. [23] In the later years of the Soviet Union, Crimean Tatar activists held picket protests in Red Square. [24] [7]

Results

For many decades, the government remained staunchly opposed to satisfying the demands for full rehabilitation for Crimean Tatars, and offered only very small token concessions over time, such as allowing a Crimean Tatar language faculty in Tashkent, although it was not officially called a Crimean Tatar language faculty and instead officially called the "Department of Tatar Language and Literature in Tashkent" due to censorship of the term "Crimean Tatar" [25] [26] as part of the government strategy of deliberately withholding re-recognition of Crimean Tatars as a distinct ethnic group. [27] Eventually in 1978 the government came up with the idea of offering Crimean Tatars compact residence with cultural support in the Mubarek zone project. [28]

After a prolonged effort of lobbying by the Crimean Tatar civil rights movement, the Soviet government established a commission in 1987 to evaluate the request for the right of return, chaired by Andrey Gromyko. [29] Gromyko's condescending attitude [30] and failure to assure them that they would have the right of return [31] ended up concerning members of the Crimean Tatar civil rights movement. In June 1988 he issued an official statement that rejected the request for re-establishment of a Crimean Tatar autonomy in Crimea and supported only allowing an organized return of a few more Crimean Tatars, while agreeing to allow the lower-priority requests of having more publications and school instruction in the Crimean Tatar language at the local level among areas with the deported populations. [32] The conclusion that "no basis to renew autonomy and grant Crimean Tatars the right to return" [33] triggered widespread protests. [34] Less than two years after Gromyko's commission had rejected their request for autonomy and return, pogroms against the deported Meskhetian Turks were taking place in Central Asia. During the pogroms, some Crimean Tatars were targeted as well, resulting in changing attitudes towards allowing Crimean Tatars to move back to Crimea. [35] Eventually a second commission, chaired by Gennady Yanaev and inclusive of Crimean Tatars on the board, was established in 1989 to reevaluate the issue, and it was decided that the deportation was illegal and the Crimean Tatars were granted the full right to return, revoking previous laws intended to make it as difficult as possible for Crimean Tatars to move to Crimea. [36] [37]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crimean Tatars</span> Turkic ethnic group indigenous to Crimea

Crimean Tatars or Crimeans are a Turkic ethnic group and nation indigenous to Crimea. The formation and ethnogenesis of Crimean Tatars occurred during the 13th–17th centuries, uniting Cumans, who appeared in Crimea in the 10th century, with other peoples who had inhabited Crimea since ancient times and gradually underwent Tatarization, including Ukrainian Greeks, Italians, Ottoman Turks, Goths, Sarmatians and many others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deportation of the Crimean Tatars</span> 1944 Soviet ethnic cleansing and genocide

The deportation of the Crimean Tatars or the Sürgünlik ('exile') was the ethnic cleansing and the cultural genocide of at least 191,044 Crimean Tatars that was carried out by Soviet Union authorities from 18 to 20 May 1944, supervised by Lavrentiy Beria, chief of Soviet state security and the secret police, and ordered by the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. Within those three days, the NKVD used cattle trains to deport the Crimean Tatars, even Soviet Communist Party members and Red Army members, from Crimea to the Uzbek SSR, several thousand kilometres away. They were one of several ethnicities that were subjected to Stalin's policy of population transfer in the Soviet Union.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Musa Mamut</span> Soviet Crimean Tatar human rights activist

Musa Mamut was a deported Crimean Tatar who immolated himself in Crimea as a sign of protest against the enforced exile of indigenous Crimean Tatars. His self-immolation symbolized the Crimean Tatar belief that deportation back to exile was worse than death. Today, he remains an icon of the Crimean Tatar civil rights movement. His act of ultimate self-sacrifice was later repeated by other Crimean Tatars, but Mamut remains the most well-known Crimean self-immolator, with his act being commemorated annually with large memorials. Crimean Tatar literature often describes him as an eternal flame illuminating Crimea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yuri Osmanov</span> Soviet-Ukrainian scientist, human rights activist, and Crimean Tatar leader (1941–1993)

Yuri Bekirovich Osmanov was a scientist, engineer, Marxist–Leninist, and Crimean Tatar civil rights activist. He was one of the co-founders of the National Movement of Crimean Tatars, which sought full right of return of the Crimean Tatar people to their homeland and restoration of the Crimean ASSR.

Tatarophobia refers to the fear of, the hatred towards, the demonization of, or the prejudice against people who are generally referred to as Tatars, including but not limited to Volga, Siberian, and Crimean Tatars, although negative attitudes against the latter are by far the most severe, largely as a result of the Soviet media's long-standing practice of only depicting them in a negative way along with its practice of promoting negative stereotypes of them in order to provide a political justification for the deportation and marginalization of them.

Ayşe Seitmuratova is a Crimean Tatar civil rights activist.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">De-Tatarization of Crimea</span>

The de-Tatarization of Crimea refers to the Soviet and Russian efforts to remove traces of the indigenous Crimean Tatar presence from the peninsula. De-Tatarization has been manifested in various ways throughout history, ranging from the full-scale deportation and exile of Crimean Tatars in 1944 to other measures such as the burning of Crimean Tatar books published in the 1920s and toponym renaming.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Şamil Alâdin</span> Crimean Tatar writer and civil rights activist

Şamil Alâdin was a Crimean Tatar writer, poet, translator, and civil rights activist. Early in his career he wrote poetry, later moving on to prose and nonfiction works.

The Letter of Seventeen was a highly controversial open letter published in Lenin Bayrağı in March 1968, condemning the desire for the right of return among the exiled Crimean Tatar community. It was often referred to as "the letter of seventeen traitors."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rollan Kadyev</span> Crimean Tatar physicist and civil rights activist (1937–1990)

Rollan Kemalevich Kadyev was a Crimean Tatar physicist and civil rights activist in the Soviet Union. A defendant in the Tashkent process, he became known as a firebrand opponent of marginalization and delimination Crimean Tatars, publicly denouncing the restrictions on returning to Crimea as well as the government policy of claiming Crimean Tatars were not a distinct ethnic group that was exemplified by official use of the euphemism "people of Tatar nationality who formerly lived in the Crimea" instead of their proper ethnonym of "Crimean Tatar". For his activities such as distributing leaflets and verbally confronting those who endorsed the status quo against of national policy relating the Crimean Tatars, he was imprisoned on charges of "defaming the Soviet system", despite passionately making the case that discriminatory and assimilationist policies against Crimean Tatars was a huge deviation from proper Leninist national policy. Later on in his life he significantly softened his tone after a 1979 imprisonment for getting into a fight with a party organizer, controversially signing off an open letter critical of Ayshe Seitmuratova's activities with Radio Liberty, which was published in Lenin Bayrağı and Pravda Vostoka in February 1981.

Decree No. 493 "On citizens of Tatar nationality, formerly living in the Crimea" was issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet on 5 September 1967 proclaiming that "Citizens of Tatar nationality formerly living in the Crimea" [sic] were officially legally rehabilitated and had "taken root" in places of residence. For many years the government claimed that the decree "settled" the "Tatar problem", despite the fact that it did not restore the rights of Crimean Tatars and formally made clear that they were no longer recognized as a distinct ethnic group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dzhebbar Akimov</span> Soviet Crimean Tatar journalist and civil rights activist

Dzhebbar Akimov was a Crimean Tatar teacher, writer who worked as editor of the newspaper "Qızıl Qırım" until the Sürgün. In exile, stood at the origins of the Crimean Tatar rights movement, becoming the leader of the Bekabad initiative group as well as authoring many documents about their plight for which he was expelled from the party in 1966, dubbed "the most active supporter of returning to Crimea" by the government in 1967, and eventually sentenced to three years in prison in 1972. Like many other leaders of the original Crimean Tatar rights movement, he considered himself a communist and opposed the prospect of members of movement associating with Soviet dissidents like Andrey Sakharov and Pyotr Grigorenko.

The Tashkent Ten were ten Crimean Tatar civil rights activists tried in Tashkent by the Uzbek Supreme Court from 1 July to 5 August 1969. The trial was sometimes called the Tashkent Process.

The National Division of Crimean Tatars is a Crimean Tatar civil rights organization that was highly active in the late Soviet era.

The OKND was an anti-communist grouping of Crimean Tatars and the successor of the Central Initiative Group in the late Soviet era. It was formed in opposition to the Leninist NDKT.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gromyko Commission</span> 1987–1988 Soviet government commission on Crimean Tatar legal rights

The Gromyko Commission, officially titled the State Commission for Consideration of Issues Raised in Applications of Citizens of the USSR from Among the Crimean Tatars was the first state commission on the subject of addressing what the dubbed "the Tatar problem". Formed in July 1987 and led by Andrey Gromyko, it issued a conclusion in June 1988 rejecting all major demands of Crimean Tatar civil rights activists ranging from right of return to restoration of the Crimean ASSR.

The main wave of Crimean Tatar repatriation occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s when over 200,000 Crimean Tatars left Central Asia to return to Crimea whence they had been deported in 1944. While the Soviet government attempted to stifle mass return efforts for decades by denying them residence permits in Crimea or even recognition as a distinct ethnic group, activists continued to petition for the right of return. Eventually a series of commissions were created to publicly evaluate the prospects of allowing return, the first being the notorious Gromyko commission that lasted from 1987 to 1988 that issued declaring that "there was no basis" to allow exiled Crimean Tatars to return en masse to Crimea or restore the Crimean ASSR.

Crimean Tatar denialism is the idea that the Crimean Tatars are not a distinct ethnic group. After the deportation of the Crimean Tatars, the Soviet government no longer recognized Crimean Tatars as a distinct ethnic group and forbade internal passports and official documents from using the term in the nationality section despite previously permitting it. The non-recognition of Crimean Tatars was emphasized by the wording of Ukaz 493, which used the euphemism "Citizens of Tatar nationality formerly living in Crimea." Only in 1989 were all restrictions on the use of the term lifted.

Mubarek zone was the name given to a Soviet-Uzbek project to promote Crimean Tatar settlement into the newly formed Mubarek District of the Uzbek SSR, instead of allowing for a return to their homeland in the Crimea. The project was very unpopular with Crimean Tatars, who wanted to return to Crimea instead of settling into the Uzbek desert. Many viewed the project as an extension of the wider Uzbek cotton scandal. The Mubarek District was established in 1978, and the whole settlement project was largely abandoned after the death of its mastermind, Sharof Rashidov in 1983.

Timur Şahmurad oğlu Daĝcı was a Crimean Tatar journalist and newspaper editor. In his youth he was involved in the Crimean Tatar rights movement, but later became active in the Communist Party and actively promoted the Mubarek resettlement scheme intended to resettle Crimean Tatars in the Uzbek desert.

References

  1. ↑ Williams 2021, p. 337.
  2. ↑ Uehling 2004, p. 259.
  3. ↑ Guboglo 1992.
  4. ↑ Fisher 2014, p. 250-252.
  5. 1 2 Williams 2016, p. 107-108.
  6. ↑ Uehling 2004, p. 100.
  7. 1 2 Allworth 1998, p. 225-227.
  8. ↑ Stronski 2010, p. 133.
  9. 1 2 Naimark 2002, p. 67-69.
  10. ↑ Khayali 2016, p. 28-38.
  11. 1 2 Williams 2016, p. 108.
  12. ↑ Buckley, Ruble & Hofmann 2008, p. 213.
  13. ↑ Williams 2016, p. 108, 136.
  14. ↑ Buttino 1993, p. 68.
  15. ↑ Basket Three 1977, p. 261.
  16. ↑ Report. The Group. 1970. pp. 14–20.
  17. ↑ Williams 2001, p. 420.
  18. ↑ Allworth 1988, p. 55, 167–169.
  19. ↑ Uehling 2004, p. 208.
  20. ↑ Allworth 1988, p. 167-169.
  21. ↑ Gromenko 2016, p. 283-286.
  22. ↑ Yakupova 2009, p. 28-30, 47–48.
  23. ↑ Ablyazov 2015.
  24. ↑ Russia. Chalidze Publication. 1983. pp. 121–122.
  25. ↑ Биз - къырымлармыз!: Мы - крымцы! 2006, p. 33.
  26. ↑ Dagdzhi 2008, p. 175.
  27. ↑ Allworth 1998, p. 200.
  28. ↑ Allworth 1988, p. 344.
  29. ↑ Smith 1996, p. 425-426.
  30. ↑ Fouse 2000, p. 340.
  31. ↑ Mastny 2019, p. 133.
  32. ↑ Country Reports 1989, p. 1230.
  33. ↑ Human Rights Watch 1991, p. 38.
  34. ↑ Vyatkin 1997, p. 32.
  35. ↑ Bekirova 2016.
  36. ↑ Skutsch 2005, p. 1190.
  37. ↑ Arbatov, Lynn-Jones & Motley 1997, p. 96-97.

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.