Once Tatars and Bashkirs lived together and built a great empire. They speak close languages, but now these relations sometimes cease to be brotherly. The people who have historically dominated the region for centuries are convinced that the language of the people who have also lived in the neighborhood for centuries is just a dialect of a great and ancient language. Moreover, even the existence of an independent neighbor is in question: "We," they say, "are one people." Indeed, in the region where the Bashkirs and Tatars live, the differences in everyday life are most often equal to zero.
Causes of controversy
The neighbor disagrees. "You live on your own, and we will manage too." Neighbors are confident in their identity, love their language, build their own state. Such claims to independence seem to the dominant people a whim. They are sure that the neighboring country is an artificial formation. First of all, this message is put forward because in a significant part of Bashkortostanethnic Tatars predominate, and Bashkirs, moreover, very often speak Tatar. The natural desire of the population prevailing in the territory is to make their language the state language and ensure that all residents use it. It is necessary to prove that the owners of this land are the Bashkirs, and the Tatars should have recognized differences in mentality.
But that doesn't work. Tatars and Bashkirs are one people, they are sure of Tatarstan and the numerous Tatar settlements of Bashkortostan. The Bashkirs are accused of artificial assimilation and the imposition of a language. This, together with the requirement that the Tatar language become the second state language in Tatarstan.
So, historical dominance approaching chauvinism against obsessive nation-building. Who is more right? Bashkirs and Tatars - differences or identity?
How to freeze ethnic conflicts
It is unlikely that anyone in Russia has heard of such a conflict, but this is not at all because these contradictions are insignificant. They are most likely much stronger than the Russian-Ukrainian ones. And they do not know about them at all because the Russians do not care how the Chuvash, Tatars and Bashkirs live. As well as Adyghe, Shors, Nenets and Dolgans. And, of course, the Yakuts.
Both Tatars and Bashkirs are as close to the Russian people as all the other 194 nationalities of the former USSR. This is not counting the small nations, which are also a huge list. Here is a picture of Bashkirs and Tatars. The photo conveys the differences only in costumes. One family!
Difficult to settle without revivalculture of dialogue with the almost completed degeneration of national elites: Bashkirs and Tatars - enmity. Although the conflicts here have not gone as far as, say, in the Caucasus, where the former Cumans (Kumyks) never lived in peace with the mountain peoples. This element cannot be suppressed in any way, except for the use of force methods. Tatars and Bashkirs have not lost everything yet.
National difficulties
Let's take a closer look at the ethnic composition. The latest census showed 29% of Bashkirs in Bashkortostan. Tatars made up 25%. Under Soviet rule, censuses showed an approximately equal number of both. Now the Tatars are accusing Bashkorstan of postscripts and assimilation, and the Bashkirs are arguing that the "Tatar" Bashkirs have returned to their identity. Nevertheless, most of all in Bashkortostan there are Russians - 36%, and no one asks what they think about it.
Russians live mainly in cities, and in rural areas Bashkirs and Tatars prevail, the differences of which are not very noticeable to the Russian eye. Russians do not have such deeply rooted contradictions with any other peoples, even those that the Bashkirs and Tatars raised. The difference in the nature of relations is so great that a conflict between local Turks and local Russians is much less likely.
From the history of the creation of the state
Historically, Russia has developed from territories inhabited by various nationalities, like a patchwork quilt. And after the revolution, naturally, the question of self-determination of all these peoples arose. In the early years of the power of the Soviets, the border of Bashkiria was formed,including such a large number of Tatars in its territory. Tataria offered its projects, and the Socialist-Revolutionaries of Idel-Ural and the Bolsheviks of the Tatar-Bashkir Soviet Republic showed amazing unanimity here. It was supposed to be a single state and a single people.
However, the Bashkirs, who were a military estate in the Russian Empire, the same as the Cossacks, formed an army and seized power in the Cis-Urals. Soviet Russia accepted them after the signing of the treaty. It meant that Lesser Bashkurdistan, where ethnic Bashkirs lived, would exist under the rule of the Bashkirs. The terms of the agreement, of course, were violated from time to time, the Bashkirs rebelled, but it ended up that in 1922 almost the entire Ufa province was already part of the Bashkir ASSR. After that, there were still some changes in the borders: Bashkorstan lost remote areas inhabited by purely Bashkirs, but everyone reconciled.
Today, the borders of Bashkortostan are part of the national self-consciousness of the Bashkirs, and they do not intend to surrender. That is why the Bashkirs and Tatars, the difference between which the Russians, for example, are not very visible, are trying to dissolve each other in themselves. As long as the number of Tatars in Bashkiria is comparable to the number of Bashkirs, the Bashkir territorial entity itself is under constant threat. Of course, the Tatars living in Bashkiria resist with all their might and want a united national state.
Non-Aggression Pact
Ethnic conflict between Tatars and Bashkirs Russia managed to freeze. But he is not killed, and there isthe risk of ever breaking free. If the republics were sovereign, then the conflict would hardly remain at rest for long, but, in any case, you can try. A nationalist state is always bad: here one can recall the Ossetians and Abkhazians who were frightened by the nationalist projects of Georgia, the Gagauz among the Moldovans, the Serbs among the Croats. In the same way, the Tatars do not want to merge into the culture of the Bashkirs, leaving claims to their own.
As long as no blood has been shed and claims have already been voiced, we can expect a peaceful dialogue and complete resolution of contradictions. The difference between Tatars and Bashkirs in their views can be overcome.
So, what are the claims of the parties? The Bashkirs want inviolability of borders and the concept of the Bashkir state. The Tatars do not want to lose their leadership in the region. Tatars of Bashkortostan want their own identity and their own language. And we must not forget that there are a large number of nationalists in Tatarstan who want one Greater Tatarstan.
Balance of interest
Bashkirs want "Bashkirism" on their territory - let them get it along with the inviolability of borders. The Tatars do not want assimilation - let them get guarantees that they will not be forced into the Bashkir identity and the Bashkir language. Tatarstan wants to be a leader in the region - it must be content with equal rights.
All peoples of Bashkortostan should have the right to receive education in their native language (with the obligatory study of Bashkir as a separate subject). The Tatar language can be used in the authorities of Bashkortostan, but it will not become an official language on a par withBashkir.
Bashkorstan can introduce national quotas so that the role of the Bashkirs becomes a leader, but there is also a representation of other peoples, and it must also abandon the assimilation of Tatars and manipulations with population censuses. Tatarstan will renounce territorial claims and dual citizenship. Bashkorstan renounces its claims to national-territorial autonomy. But there is no hope that such a dialogue will take place soon.
Justice lives in hell, and only love lives in heaven
Such a plan will certainly seem unfair to both sides. However, what is the alternative, what will please her? In this case, there is no difference between Tatars and Bashkirs, and it will be bad for everyone. On the one hand, the Tatars must understand that peace is the key to their claim to leadership. Tatars living in Bashkorstan will serve as a link between the republics.
And if a war, even a victorious one, happens, Tatarstan gets the worst enemy at the borders, plus, there will be no international legitimacy, but there will be a lot of suspicion from the neighboring republics. Peacefully, the Bashkirs will not abandon the borders of the republic and the role of their people in this territory.
Bashkirs also need to realize a lot. The borders and status of the titular nation can be preserved only in case of an agreement with the peoples living in the republic. There is an option: ethnic cleansing under a national dictatorship. This does not bode well for Bashkorstan - neitherin international status, nor in relations with the nearest neighbors.
Now about the Russians, who are the majority
How to be in this situation Russian living in the territories of Bashkortostan and Tatarstan? Now the Russian language has a disproportionate advantage in both republics, despite all their nationalism. There is a total dominance of the Russian language in business, in all media and in book publishing, and government administration is almost entirely conducted in Russian, even where the number of Russian people is small.
In Bashkortostan it is easy to climb the career ladder without knowing either Tatar or Bashkir. But it's even ridiculous to talk about it if a person doesn't know Russian. One cannot compare teaching Bashkir and Tatar to Russian children with teaching Russian to Tatars and Bashkirs. Everyone, without exception, speaks Russian to the fullest extent, which cannot be said about the knowledge of Russians in the national language of the republics.
Russians don't care whether "Bashkirization" comes or "Tatarization" - in any case, over the next few decades, at least the share of the Russian language will be much higher than the share of any national language. So it happened, despite all the claims to equality and justice. And political representation can be distributed by agreement, as ordinary Bashkirs and Tatars want. The differences between them are also insignificant in such important areas as religion: in addition to atheism and Orthodoxy, which are present in both republics, the majority professes Sunni Islam.
Good progress
Hope forimprovement in Bashkir-Tatar relations appeared after the departure of President M. Rakhimov. The presidents of the republics exchanged visits. Tatar TV channel TNV launched in Ufa as a correspondent office.
The cultural and economic cooperation of these republics has increased. Although the unresolved problems have not gone anywhere, numerous contradictions remain in the relations between the two countries. In fact, it is strange that the elites of peoples who are closest in language and the same culture do not get a joint approach to the problems of nation-building.
Where does this different vision of the ethno-political space come from? The year 1917, with its erroneous, perhaps, decisions, is incredibly far from the present moment, but, nevertheless, the conflicts hidden there still influence the mentality of the two fraternal peoples.
Causes of controversy
If you dig deeper, you can identify five main factors of such a development of events from the canvas of events of a century ago. The first is subjective, the rest are quite objective.
1. Hostility and complete lack of understanding between leaders Zaki Walidi and Gayaz Iskhaki.
Zaki Validi was the leader of the Bashkir liberation movement from 1917 to 1920. Orientalist, historian, PhD, professor and honorary member of the University of Manchester in the future. In the meantime, just a leader.
Gayaz Iskhaki is the leader of the national movement of Tatarstan, publisher and writer, publicist and politician. A zealous Muslim - led in the preparation, and after in holding the first congress of Muslims inpre-revolutionary Moscow. Smart, educated people, why didn't they agree?
2. The land issue was considered differently by the Tatars and the Bashkirs.
Tatars for 365 years from the moment of colonization gradually lost all the lands seized during the Mongol-Tatar yoke, since the position of these territories was strategic: rivers, roads, trade routes. The first time - after 1552, then - at the beginning of the 18th century, by royal decree, feudal lords were liquidated in Tataria, and the lands were transferred to Russian settlers and the treasury. Since then, landlessness has become a real disaster for the Tatars.
A different situation developed in the territories of the Bashkirs, who had patrimonial rights in the tsarist empire and constantly subsequently fought for it. During the famine that happened under tsarism periodically - once every 3-5 years, as well as during the Stolypin reform, settlers arrived in Bashkiria both from Russia and from nearby lands. A multinational peasantry was formed. The land issue has always been very acute in Bashkiria, and after 1917 it became a factor in the formation of a national movement.
3. The purely geographical location of the Tatar and Bashkir lands.
The lands of the Tatars were in the very depths of the Empire, they had no borders with any outlying region capable of joining forces in the struggle for common interests. Bashkiria almost bordered on Kazakhstan - fifty kilometers of Russian land separated these republics from each other. The likelihood of a union was very high.
4. Some differences in the settlement system of Bashkirs and Tatars in the Russian Empire.
Dispersedthe resettlement of the Tatars before the revolution, even on their lands, did not constitute an overwhelming majority, against the Bashkirs, who constituted an overwhelming majority on their lands.
5. Different cultural and educational levels of Bashkirs and Tatars.
During the dispersed settlement of the Tatars, their main weapon was intelligence, high moral qualities and organization. The strength of the Bashkirs was not madrasah and intelligence. They owned land, were militarized and ready to defend their independence at any moment. Despite all these points, Bashkirs and Tatars can be quite friendly. The photos in the article demonstrate many moments of truly fraternal and good neighborly relations.
