Dialogue  October - December, 2004 , Volume 6  No. 2

Central Asia after collapse of USSR and Islamic Radicalism
Prof. Muzaffar Alimov

As a result of the collapse of the USSR in the early 90s, five independent states emerged on the map of Central Asia. From the very first year of their existence some of them, on one stage or the other, faced socio-political problems and threats to their security and internal stability.

The economic and social crisis that seized the Central Asian States after the downfall of the USSR was gradual and profound as compared with other CIS countries. As a result of the disintegration process of the countries of this region there is a significant decline in the socio-economic situation and in the material prosperity of the citizens. A sharp downfall in the living standards of the people is visible. There is degradation in the health and education systems and in the social-system as a whole, the number of the poorest people is increasing rapidly, there is increasing unemployment - mainly amongst the youth, and an increasing social stratification. With the weakening and corrupting of the law protection system, organized crime and corruption are also on the rise.

The GDP of the states of the region in the period 1992 to 1999 on an average decreased by 30-45% (A.Kashanov, B. Hussaimov, Problems of integration of states of Central Asia, J. Central Asia and Kaphkaz No 1 (13) (p 79-95). There was a considerable downfall in the industrial production. During this period, three out of the five Central Asian States - Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrghyztan slid to the category of the poorest states of the world.

During this period new threats emerged to confront these independent States. Foremost are the problems of inter-ethnic relations as well as of mutual territorial claims that arose from the very moment of independence. These have not only become serious irritants in the mutual relationship among the states of the region but also pose a hidden threat to the inter-political stability of the region. The Soviet period brought considerable changes in the territorial and ethnic structure of Central Asia in an attempt to solve the national and religious contradictions. However, Soviet policies destroyed the complex balance of ethnic, religious and mutual political relationship. The territories of Bukhara Emirate, Kakand and Khevo Khanate became parts of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrghyztan. A number of people were transferred to these republics forcibly, while many others reached here as a result of migration of labour force. (A. Jacshenkulov, New independent states of Central Asia in the world community M: 2000, p 83).

With the creation of new borders by the Soviet powers, many people found no place in the formation of their governments. The Ferghana Valley populated primarily by Uzbeks was divided into parts that went to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrghyztan. The traditional centres of Tajik culture - Samarkand and Bukhara, became part of Uzbekistan. The southern part of Kazakhstan has a significant number of Uzbeks while the number of Kazakhs in Uzbekistan is no less either. However, with the open borders within the region during the Soviet era, such a division was practically not felt. But after the collapse of the USSR the nationalities that constituted the minority in these Central Asian States felt themselves under tremendous pressures from the majority after whom the states were titled.

The Soviet attempt to construct Central Asian nations along the European model of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries could not be accomplished and left behind considerable ‘construction material’ in the form of primitive ethnic elements (tribal and ethno-territorial). It is this archived material that now manifests in social life after the collapse of the USSR.

In all fairness one must note that the process of nation building on the basis of titular nations, on a territory so poly-ethnical in structure as the previous Central Asian Khanate, in principle, was not the best of actions taken during the Soviet era and probably under any circumstance after acquiring independence, would have become the reason for serious controversies.

In this connection, particularly soon after the collapse of USSR, the question of interethnic coexistence became an important issue in the Central Asian states. As observed by A. Jacshenkulov: that the politics of central power on the cultivation of ethnical tolerance – "friendship among the Soviet people" - had its positive fruits, but yet it could not overcome ethnic and religious controversies. The many problems of relationship among the people were so very difficult in their own way and had old roots that they could not be resolved even during the 50 years of Soviet power (ibid, p 82). Consequently, as has been mentioned above, in the end of 80s and beginning of 90s, during the period of weakening of central power in the region, a series of conflicts occurred on ethnic grounds.

Obviously then, with the dawn of independence and subsequent intensification of interethnic conflicts within these states, the conflicts also got reflected – to an extent - in the official power politics of the states. A defined nationalism in that period, served as an ideological base for the construction of the new state, feeding on self determination of the titular ethnic group, language, series of norms, traditions etc. and its imposition on the on the entire territory of the country (C. Golunov, Post Soviet borders of Central Asia in context to/with security and cooperation. J. Central Asia and Kaphkaz No 5(17) 2001, p 166-179).

But such politics subsequently entered into controversy with quite a large number of national minorities living outside the boundary of their respective national states.

As in Uzbekistan, in the second half of 90s, it was noticed that a powerful pressure was exerted on the Tajiks living in that country to move out. In Samarkand and Bukhara, books in Tajik language were removed from the libraries and the number of Tajiki schools in the country also decreased significantly. On the other hand, Uzbeks living in Kyrghyztan were subjected to opposition from the official powers. It was only later in the 90s the nationalistic fervor of titular nationalities somewhat decreased and the government policies towards the minority nationalities became more considerable and tolerable.

In this background, the Russian speaking population of the region, which during the Soviet period were considered an important integrating factor for maintaining a balance of its own kind and served as a political stabilizer in the difficult interethnic relationships in a number of republics, now found itself in a peculiar situation. Later, when the socio-political status of the Russian speaking population, perhaps with the exception of Kazakhstan, changed substantially, and its number due to migration decreased significantly, the Russian ethnic group ceased to be considered the stabilising factor in interethnic relations (as it was earlier called)