By Gulnoza Saidazimova

Arts: Pressure from Uzbekistan notwithstanding, Kyrgyzstan does not intend to mingle literature with politics

Ferghana.Ru news agency, Alisher Saipov (Osh), 20.02.2006

Ferghana.Ru's brief report last week with references to Radio Ozodlik that Muhammad Salikh's works were studied at the Uzbek Humanitarian Teacher-Training College generated considerable public excitement in Osh. This news agency reported that professors had decided to include Salikh's works in the curriculum along with the works of other classics.

"Studies of the comprehensive Uzbek literature will be incomplete without studies of this poet's work," Uzbek literature professors Davron Nasibkhonov and Mujassar Khalmatova told Ozodlik.

The works of Salai Madaminov (alias Muhammad Salikh) were banned in Uzbekistan ten years ago and withdrawn from all libraries throughout the country. All references to him were removed from curricula.

Reporting on the plans to include Salikh's works in the curriculum, Ferghana.Ru news agency never intended any political coloring, while Nasibkhonov and Khalmatova never thought their words would be taken as a political barb.

In the meantime, Osh television reported the news after Ferghana.Ru on February 13, and these channels are watched all over the Ferghana Valley including its Uzbek part. Hence apparently the rage of official Uzbekistan.

The day following local TV journalist Khulkar Isamova's report with references to Ferghana.Ru, Ravshanbek Tursunov made a scathing denouncement on the local OshTV channel (Tursunov is director of the Uzbek Humanitarian Teacher-Training College of Osh State University).

It became known afterwards that once the news had been reported, Tursunov was summoned to the top echelons of Osh State University and that officers of Uzbek and Kyrgyz national security services paid a visit to the college where nearly 700 students from Uzbekistan studied. Secret services demanded an explanation. Tursunov announced rather meekly that "the comprehensive Uzbek literature curriculum has not been amended."

These attempts to mingle literature with politics and ideology are an alarming symptom. In any case, the works of the Uzbek poet in question are not banned in Kyrgyzstan, officially or unofficially. Nobody has banned anyone's works in this country and - we hope - nobody will.

Official Tashkent's reaction to the news that the works of an Uzbek opposition leader are studied in Kyrgyzstan offers an undistorted picture of the political atmosphere in Uzbekistan which resembles Josef Stalin's era. Just like nowadays, the black lists of the NKVD in the 1930's included great Uzbek poets and writers like Abdulla Kadyri, Abdulkhamid Suleiman Chulpan, Usman Nasyr, and others.

Why would Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan pretend that Salikh the poet does not exist?

Valentina Ulivanova of the Osh Regional Library recalls how Alexander Solzhenitsyn's books were banned in the Soviet Union.

"We were given the lists of the authors whose works had to be removed to where visitors would not see them," Ulivanova said. "We did not destroy them, just put them into repository."

Disintegration of the Soviet Union put an end to orders like that. Nobody banned Salikh's books in Kyrgyzstan even though he himself is out of favor with the authorities of his own country.

There are works by Salikh in the Osh Regional Library nowadays, his books of poems of the Soviet vintage. Readers are welcome to read his "Beshinchi Fasl" (The Fifth Season), "Valfazhr" (Singing), "Olis Tabassum Sojasi" (Shade Of A Distant Smile) in the Uzbek language. "Mujtadil Ranglar" (Tale Of An Errorless Life), a book of poems by his brother Maksud Bekzhan, is also available.

"We even have books by Askar Akayev here. Nobody has ever outlawed them, not even in the wake of the March revolution," librarian Arzykhan Sabirova said.

Sabirova complains that the law demanding a copy of a book to be sent to all libraries is history now. There have been practically no entries in the Osh Regional Library since the collapse of the USSR. Librarians say that they will gladly receive anything in the Uzbek language.


 

Other clauses on same theme:

Pressure from Uzbekistan notwithstanding, Kyrgyzstan does not intend to mingle literature with politics

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Uzbek Opposition Leader Visits London: Salih Embraced by UK Politicians, Experts

(London, 22 January 2006)-- Exiled opposition leader Muhammad Salih held a series of high-level meetings here last week, signaling that the UK is ready to support democratic change in Uzbekistan.

Salih, who heads the Erk (Freedom) Party of Uzbekistan and is chairman of the National Salvation Committee of Uzbekistan, met with parliamentarians, academics, and the media during the week. His trip culminated in a high-powered roundtable at the prestigious Royal Institute of International Affairs, also known as Chatham House.

After September 11, the UK joined its US allies in embracing the Uzbek dictator in exchange for access to military bases to fight the war in neighboring Afghanistan. But when government troops fired on a crowd of peaceful protesters in the eastern city of Andijan in May 2005, the UK was forced to recognize the true face of the Karimov regime. Hundreds died in the Andijan massacre, which is frequently compared to the Tiananmen Square demonstrations of 1989.

During his visit, Salih outlined his proposals for political and economic reform in Uzbekistan. He told audiences at Chatham House and elsewhere that Karimov has lost legitimacy inside Uzbekistan and even within his own government.

"Ultimately, it must be the Uzbek people who stand up with one voice against their brutal leader," Salih said in a statement at the close of his London trip. "But there is a great deal that the outside world can do to help in the meantime."

Salih was a well-known poet in Uzbekistan before entering politics, which often invites comparisons with the Czech democrat Vaclav Havel. He founded the Erk Party in 1990 to advocate for Uzbek independence, lost a rigged presidential election to Karimov a year later, and eventually was forced into exile.

Salih and other opposition figures -- including recent defectors -- will travel to Washington, D.C. for high-level meetings with government officials and experts in February.



For more information, please contact:

In London, Shahida Tulaganova (English, Russian, Uzbek): +44 7803 627 921; shahidayakub@gmail.com

In New York, J. Quinn Martin (English, Russian): +1 860 933 9477; jqm2101@columbia.edu
 

Policy Exchange invites you to a small lunchtime seminar with the Uzbek opposition leader Muhammad Salih, from 12.30-1.30pm on Friday January 20th.


One of Uzbekistan's best writers and founder of the country's perestroika-era democracy movement, Muhammad Salih ran against Karimov for the presidency in 1992. Shortly afterwards his party was banned and in '99 he was convicted, in absentia, of still-mysterious bombings. Though currently in exile, he remains one of the country's leading opposition figures, and since May's Andijan massacre has been listened to with increasing sympathy in London and Washington.

Venue: Policy Exchange, Clutha House, 10 Storey's Gate, SW1P 3AY (nearest tubes Westminster and St James's Park). If you would like to join us please email events@policyexchange.org.uk . Sandwiches will be provided.



Attendance list, seminar with Muhammad Salih, 12.30pm Friday January 20th

John Bercow MP, Noah Birksted-Breen (International Freedom Network )

Peter David, Greg Hands MP (The Economist)

Bridget Kendall (BBC)

Craig Murray (Former ambassador to Tashkent)

Ben Rogers (Christian Solidarity Worldwide)

Maria Sanchez-Marin Malero (International Crisis Group)

Anna Walker (Economist Intelligence Unit)

Giles Whittell (The Times)



Research director, Policy Exchange,
Clutha House,
10 Storey's Gate,
London SW1P 3AY
Direct tel. 0207 340 2661
anna.reid@policyexchange.org.uk

 

Empire's edge

Scott Malcomson

Travels in South-Eastern Europe, Turkey and Central Asia

London and New York, 1994, pp: 187-191

 

‘A powerful book about Europe’s mutable boundaries.’
(Caryl Phillips)

Mohammed Salih is unusually tall, very handsome man around forty, and when you meet him-he enter the room with the easy confdence of a thoughtful businessman-he's dressed entirely in pristine white. He smokes foreign cigarettes stuck in a holder. He has just quit parliament. Mohammed Salih Ieads the Erk party, the only legal opposition party of any size. Erk puts out a weekly newspaper which is the only Iegal opposition newspaper of any size. He has Ieft parliament because he was attempting to speak there about what the govemment ought to do and his microphone was cut off. 50 he deposited his parliamentarian's card on his desk.

''lt was the Iast way remaining to me to fght against the estab- Iished regime of dictatorship. Over the Iast two years, 1 have demanded, on behalf of the opposition, that the govemment fulfll its promises of radical reform. But they do nothing. On the contrary , they have begun to work to strengthen the former system. All the same, this system won't work. The totalitarian system worked for sev- enty or eighty years. But now it won't work. 5uch a system has, historically, run out of time.

''We have emerged from this system, but we haven't gone to anything. We are living in a system without a system.''

The government, he says, has used the militia to keep itself in power; and indeed there have been regular arrests and beatings of Erk members and other dissidents. ''But that government which survives by force cannot survive long. People are becoming more opposed to the government, mainly because of the economy , and it has wasted the stability of the period that followed independence. We in the opposition understand very we11 that stability is necessary for reform. For the last three years we have tried to ensure stability , refraining from holding big meetings. But, as it turns out, this stability wasn't used to provide a space for reform. On the contrary. 50 the government has lost its chance to use stability .We are not at all sure now that stability will continue.''

Erk is working on a new constitution and an alternative economic plan, as well as building its own party structures. Conditions are less than ideal. The government printing house-the only printing house-reduced Erk's newspaper's press run from one hundred thousand to twelve thousand. And now Erk's leader has left parlia- ment, which most people still call the supreme soviet. A majority voted to accept his resignation.

''l won't go back until there's a new parliament. I didn't decide to be leader of the opposition, but events take you to such places. L never liked politics or politicians. I was just a poet. There are such periods in each country, when poets become involved in politics. ln- dependence, liberty , are among the ideas most dear to poets. A man should do something in his life. This is a rule of life. Writing poems was once my aim in life. Now this is my life-activity .''

Meanwhile, the government is creating its own opposition par- ties so that it can eliminate the exiting opposition while preserving the appearance of democracy. And it is increasing repression. Salih looks impressively calm in his crisp white clothes, gesturing with his cigarette holder.

‘'If the government reforms, such a tightening of control won't be needed. Such a repressive system will only increase instability . They're doing their best to increase stability , but they are destroying stability .The govemment should give the people economic and political freedom. If it doesn't, its life will be very short. If it does, then perhaps its life will be prolonged. This would be better for everyone. We don't want to throw President Karimov away. I talk to him all the time. But then, many people talk to him. Maybe their influence is greater than mine. The national and provincial chiefs-of course, all ex-Communists, Iike the president, only under a new party name- they're making obstacles to the new Iaws. The president can't enforce the Iaws by himself. Maybe, yes, he knows this. But if he eliminates these people, what will he have Ieft? He's afraid df the system he Ieads. The old Communists still rule. I am very sympathetic to him.''

The govemment uses the fear of Islamic fundamentalism to make itself more attractive to foreign govemments and the ex- Communist bureaucracy. Salih believes fundamentalism will become a problem only if the govemment makes it one. ''The Islamic activists are not aiming at political power now .But they certainly have such a potential. If there aren't reforms, some Muslims may tum to politics. But as for now there is no fundamentalist leader or program. Fun- damentalism is not politically important, not shaped or ripened. if a strong man appears with a strong program, then his party could be- come powerful.

''Islam is our holy religion. Of course its role is very great. This is natural. In our opinion, Islam shouldn't be political. Islam is higher 1 than any party. To draw it down would mean to curse God.''

A few months after that, Mohammed Salih the handsome poet and Ieader of the moderate opposition, who doesn't even want to get rid of the president of a government that rejects him, wili fnd his party crushed, his newspaper eliminated, his offces sealed. He will be jailed twice, charged with crimes against the state. One day , his Erk companions will inform him that he is due to be arrested again, this time for good, and at three the next morning he will slip away, travel by car to Kazakhstan, thence to Baku, Turkey , the United States. His wife and two small children will also flee, travelling for days around Uzbekistan to confuse the authorities then dashing over the border into Turkmenistan. Religious Ieaders will go underground, or be jailed. People will begin simply to disappear ...

Literature and Politics: Mohammed Salih
and Political Change in Uzbekistan from 1975 to 1995

Ruth Deibler

Indiana University

April, 1996

Introduction
In the late 1970s and the decade following, immense changes occurred within the Soviet Union. The results of both a lack of innovative advances in technology and a system which rewarded people for work regardless of how well it was done began to show up in economic decline. After Brezhnev's death in 1982, leaders Andropov and Chernenko initiated a crackdown on corruption as a means to alter the situation. When Gorbachev came to power in March 1985, he began economic reform through restructuring and a new openness in society: perestroika and glasnost. These changes affected all fifteen republics, including Uzbekistan. When such changes have occurred, writers throughout the Soviet Union, although not always able to publish their works, have played an important role in expressing the desires and opinions of the common people. This is also true in Uzbekistan. A modern-day writer in this type of role (born in 1949), is Muhammad Salih.

Writing and politics are closely interwoven in the life of Muhammad Salih. He transforms his thoughts regarding the events around him into words that express his concerns and desire for change. The development of Salih's prose directly coincides with the political development of Uzbekistan from 1977 to the present. The style of Salih's writing changed from that of imagery and symbolism to pure political writing as the political atmosphere also changed from a closed Soviet society, to glasnost, then to political independence for Uzbekistan. The first of the four periods was 1977 to 1985, during which little freedom existed. The second begins in the early Gorbachev era, with the introduction of glasnost in 1986. The third period is from 1989 to 1992. Near the end of this period, in September 1989, Uzbekistan adopted a language law; near the end, Uzbekistan declared its independence and held its first presidential election. The final period encompasses 1992 to 1995 when Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, firmly established his authoritarian rule.

The road to independence was a long one, and in order to fully understand the events covered in this paper, a brief background of the history of Uzbekistan is necessary. Before it became a republic of the Soviet Union, much of the area of Uzbekistan was part of the larger Turkestan, which began to he colonized by the Russian empire during the nineteenth century, first through trading practices and then through the establishment of military and administrative centers. Shortly after the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, the Soviet government somewhat arbitrarily carved up Turkestan and the territory of the recently abolished Bukharan Amirate and the Khivan Khanate into five republics. This was part of the strategy of ensuring Central Asian weakness and continued central control by the Soviet government. The policy created an Uzbekistan, an "Uzbek" people and a distinct "Uzbek language."

Another scheme for keeping ethnic minorities in submission and ensuring Russian dominance in language, culture, and history, was the Stalinist purge of the 1930s which swept the whole Soviet Union. Stalin ordered the executions of thousands of Central Asians, including Uzbek's, many of whom were well educated: the elite, the writers, the historians and the respected elders in society. In addition to destroyed lives, Uzbek history for that period was distorted. The central government forced Uzbek authors to write about and glorify only Russian events and conquests, implying that Central Asians were less cultured and less civilized.

Beginning in the 1930s, Moscow also promoted unification of Soviet peoples by Russifying all minorities through the language policy it promulgated. Moscow insisted that Uzbek's learn Russian and rely on it for communication with the administration and within governing bodies. Most education also stressed the use of Russian; in most disciplines it was imposible to go beyond secondary school studying in a language other than Russian. Thus, the entire elite had to speak, read and write fluent Russian. This caused the use and knowledge of the Uzbek language to decline.

All of the above affected the Uzbek's sense of culture and identity, but the cotton monoculture affected their economy, their land, and their health, essentially destroying all three. Before the Russian conquest, people in what became Uzbekistan grew their own rice, grain, and vegetable crops, as well *as cotton. Then the Russian tsars began to increasingly rely on Turkestan's cotton, so the Turkic people increased the amount of land under cotton cultivation. After the Bolshevik revolution, Moscow continued to rely on Uzbekistan's cotton especially, and pressured Uzbeks to increase their production and sell the raw cotton to the Russian republic far below market cost. In Russia, factories transformed the cotton fiber into fabric. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the central government, through the cotton plan, compelled Uzbeks to abandon their traditional system of crop rotation and letting the land lie fallow to regain nutrients, and forced them to increase the amount of land under cotton production at the expense of grain and other edible crops. Therefore, Uzbeks had to rely on Russian imports to feed their own people. The increased land under cultivation, along with inefficient irrigation systems and increased use of pesticides (to ensure a fuller cotton crop) brought about the desiccation and poisoning of soils, water shortage, air pollution, and overwhelming health problems. The cotton monoculture continued, although, even as early as the 1960s, reports surfaced that the level of the Aral Sea was dropping because no water was reaching it. This is the Uzbekistan in which Muhammad Salih grew up, andthese are some of the problems which he addressed.

Salih's background provides important insights into what made him the person he is how he came to be a writer and why he felt more freedom to express his thoughts than those of the older generation, even in the days before glasnost. He was born 20 December 1949 in the province of Khorezm in a small village named Yangibazar. After finishing middle school in 1968, he served two years in the Soviet army. From 1970 until 1975 he studied in the Faculty of Journalism at Tashkent University, and later spent two years studying literature in Moscow. Those years of study enabled him to further develop his writing skills as well as to study the works of other writers. After completing his education, Salih worked in the Writers Union of Uzbekistan, and in 1988 he was elected to a secretary position. Muhammad Salih has been a writer since his youth. His poetry began to be published in 1966, and by the early 1990s twelve books of his poetry and prose works had been published in Uzbekistan. He divorced his first wife, an Uzbek woman, leaving her with three children. His second wife, a Polish woman, bore him two more children. Simply because of his date of birth, he is a part of a new era; he did not live through the purges of the late 1930s or World War II and therefore did not fear repression from Moscow as did those of the previous generation. He grew up during a time when Khrushchev attempted to undo much of Stalin's terror and build a better, freer society. Also, he was able to achieve a high level of education which has made him part of the elite of Uzbekistan who enjoy more privileges.

The printing of Salih's works on Uzbekistan presses depended very much on the time period, the political atmosphere, and what he wrote. Much of his early poetry was published in Uzbekistan, and some has been translated into other languages and even published abroad. He is mostly known for his poetry, but Salih also wrote short stories, and more recently, articles, which discuss politics in Uzbekistan. His early pieces, published in Uzbekistan, are all poems. Many of his short stories and articles, written between 1977 and 1988 were not published in journals or anywhere else until 1990. The fact that they were not published before then reflects Salih's boldness in writing about sensitive issues and the censorship, which existed in Uzbekistan. Most of the works discussed in this paper are Salih's short stories and articles, some of which were not published for some time after they were written. Whether a work was published at the time it was written will be noted as each is discussed, as this plays an important role in the development of the thesis.

The period of Salih's writing covered in this paper, from 1977 to early 1995, correspond to the periods outlined above and coincide with four distinct periods in the political development of Uzbekistan. Throughout all four periods, his style of writing changed and parallels the political developments of the time. To some extent his subjects vary, although the common theme of the importance of the Uzbek language in the republic/nation is seen throughout. In order to provide some background for the rest of Salih's works, this paper will begin the discussion of the relationship between Salih's writings and political developments with a work written in 1977. At that time Uzbeks still focused on fulfilling the cotton plan each year, and although the resulting ecological and environmental problems began to stare them in the face, the officials ignored them. Administrators and common citizens alike did little to address these problems. Salih's works reflect this closed society, as he writes using images and symbols.

Glasnost and perestroika began making changes in society during the second period, which spanned the years 1985 to 1989. Gradually, Moscow allowed problems to surface and is analyzed, the Communist Party directed a campaign for the ousting of corrupt officials, and the press had increased freedom to report these events. Salih's writing reflects this openness; he became much more direct, and he specifically addressed the economic, political and social problems he observed. He even became so bold as to directly speak out against some of Moscow's policies.

This freedom was curtailed beginning in the middle of 1989. And despite the fact that Uzbekistan gained independence following the coup attempt in Moscow in August 199 1, little changed for the better. The small or even non-existent ideological foundation for independence in Uzbekistan compelled authorities to attempt instantaneously to create an economically and socially viable nation. By exercising strict control over dissenting groups, Islam Karimov, the president established stability and an independent republic. Salih, too, became politically involved beginning in 1988. His writing at this time, at least that available to the public, was strictly political in nature as he tried to work within the political system for change.

The final period, from the end of 1992 to early 1995, demonstrates the increased authoritarian rule by Karimov, the control of the press, and economic and political disaster. Coinciding with political developments, Salih's writing once again reflected the total control of the media, as did his situation in which he wrote the last piece discussed in this paper. Because of Uzbek government policies, he fled the country in 1992, being no longer able to publish as he did in the 1970s and early 1980s, should he even desire to do so. He continues to struggle for justice and democracy, although his writing is somewhat disillusioned and bitter.

Chapter One- 1977-1985

In analyzing Salih's writings, the period from 1977 to 1985 is important because it provides a foundation on which to build and a basis for comparison with the later periods. It leads up to the beginnings of glasnost and perestroika. Problems such as the desiccation of the Aral Sea, the shortage of water, deterioration of health, unemployment, and a high population growth rate existed in Uzbekistan during this period. But, because of continued pressure by Moscow to fulfill the cotton plan each year and a reluctance to address any issue which may be perceived as a negative reaction to the governing administration, neither citizens of the Soviet Union nor the press addressed such problems until after 1982. This period is indicative of control by Moscow; citizens did not have the freedom to express any discontent openly.

Muhammad Salih reflected this lack of freedom and discontent in his writing, using symbolism and imagery, because he was not free to come out directly against the restricting forces of the Soviet regime. He wrote on three major themes in this early period. The first, evident in “Letter to My Younger Brother,”[1] appears to be a cry to his fellow Uzbeks not to blindly follow Soviet ideology but to think for themselves. The second theme, seen in the three statue tales, "The Sculpture Who Lost His Way," "Those Who Stand Alone," and "The Meeting," seems to be a cautious statement against the Russian presence in Uzbekistan their authority, control and domination over Uzbeks. He portrays Russians as stubborn, tough, deceitful and even a little stupid. The final theme, which is a recurring one throughout all four periods, is the importance of the Uzbek language. The language theme is presented by two of Salih's poems: In an Alien land and "Speak in Turkii." All these themes reflect Salih's thoughts about politics in Uzbekistan at this time.

Salih was not able to publish any of these pieces until years after they were written, a fact, which demonstrates both the sensitivity of the material and government censorship. The "Letter to My Younger Brother," written in 1977, and the three statue tales, written in 1979, were published in 1990 in Kozi Tiyran Dard (The Watchful Eye of Suffering). "Speak in Turkii," written in 1982, was also not published until 1990 in a book of Salih's poetry. 1n an Alien Land," written in 1981, was published in 1986 in yet another book of Salih's poetry. The dates of publication indicate the delicate nature of the material and the gradual openness, which occurred in society. It is interesting to note that "In an Alien land was published in 1986, when, as will be shown, Uzbeks began clamoring for Uzbek to be their state language. On the other hand, "Speak in Turki" was not published until several years later, after the state language law had been adopted and Uzbeks were on the verge of declaring their sovereignty. Why this poem was also not published in 1986 remains unclear.

The first work discussed in the period is entitled "Letter to My Younger Brother." It demonstrates the first theme a cry to Uzbeks to learn, study, and think for themselves. This piece serves as the preface to Salih's book of short stories and articles, Kozi Tiyran Dard. It begins the period from, 1977 to 1985 because it is the first story in the book and because its message reflects Salih's underlying desire in all his early writing to awaken the Uzbeks to understand what the central government was doing to them, to think for them selves, and to study and read on their own without undiscerningly accepting everything Moscow fed them. The "Letter to My Younger Brother" is written to his "uka" (younger brother), but more profoundly, it may be read as referring to Uzbeks, especially those of the younger generation. It serves as the preface to the book and was written in 1977, whereas all the other stories and articles in the book were written in 1979 and later. Thus the "letter" could be interpreted as Salih encouraging his readers to be his "uka," to follow his advice, to become discerning and not unthinkingly swallo Moscow's ideology. Then he provides them with the rest of his book as resource material for them to do just that.

In "Letter to My Younger Brother," Salih advises his brother to emulate the behavior of the child in the story Salih proceeds to relate. The child learns to read by delivering letters during the war. These letters to parents regarding their sons (soldiers serving in the war), were of two types: black or white. Black referred to those sons who died, and white to those who did not. This child is a 'lover of books" even though few books are available and his father has no money to buy him reading material. But the child manages to borrow and read whatever books he can find. Salih thus stresses the importance of learning to read on one's own. He also encourages his "uka" to love books and knowledge.

Illustrations in the books which the child reads become an important issue in Salih's story. The illustrations appear to represent the central government indicating a specific direction it wants the Uzbeks to go, and the particular way it wants them to view things, without giving them any room for their own imagination or to think for themselves:

Every illustration in the book is a hindrance to him- If the child's imagination says, "A certain hero is in this shape," the illustration stubbornly stands and says, "No, it is like! his," staring at his eyes. The peculiarity of the illustration increases the child's nervousness. He used to not look at the illustrations, but insteadtore them out and gave them to his younger sister (6)* [2]

Salih seems to suggest that perhaps it is necessary for a reader to "tear out the illustrations" so that he himself can form ideas on the thoughts the book presents. The story continues as late one night the boy falls asleep over his book, and his fur hat, standing near the fireplace, catches fire and eventually the entire house nearly bums down. After this, the child's parents forbid him to read in the evenings, and that particular book is destroyed: whether in the fire or by the parents is unclear in the story. The conclusion of the story, Salih states, is that one should never doze ' while reading a book at night because, "a fire might be set... The child loves the book, but weariness is betrayed in his body. Weariness creates indifference, making one fall asleep" (6). Salih seems to suggest that Uzbeks, who have tried to read and think for themselves without paying attention to the "Illustrations" provided by the Communist Party, have become weary in their striving and have fallen asleep. And, in falling asleep they have lost control over the situation; before they are able to do anything, a "fire" breaks out, and the book, from which they were beginning to gain their own ideas, is destroyed.

Salih's final advice to his brother is that "not the books without illustrations, but books without ideas make a reader fall asleep. Do not read books without ideology,' your teacher truly explained. I advise you, 'Also, do not read books without ideas' " (6). He clearly states that it is not the dullness of a book without pictures, that is, without an ideology already provided, which makes a person apathetic, but a book without any concrete ideas to think about in the first place which atrophies the brain. Thus, in the first theme, Salih seems to want his readers to wake up and think for themselves, not simply follow, like sheep, the ideology put forth by Moscow.

The second theme in this period, following inferences made in "Letter to My Younger Brother," is a description of Russian presence in Central Asia: Salih notes Russians' ignorance of where they live and their insensitivity to the environment and culture; he also notes Russian presence as one that does not belong in Central Asia; and Russians' unwillingness to change. Related to this is the theme that a great person is one who studies and thinks for himself., i.e., not imitating Russian dominance and ideology. The three pieces which express this theme are, on the surface, about statues of famous figures which stand in Uzbekistan. Written in 1979, they are three mini- vignettes about Russian sculptures which are very much out of place in this Central Asian setting.

In the first tale, "The Sculptures. Who Lost Their Way," Salih begins by describing people standing in a bread line "holding their hearts in their hands" (66). The difference between this particular line and the stereotypical Russian bread lines comes out slowly. First, Salih demonstrates that neither the old people, nor the war or labor heroes, nor the religious leaders, are permitted to cut in front of the line, which is the usual custom. Then he says those in line are statues; not people, and they are "getting acquainted with one another." Salih writes:

Indeed, our many statues do not know why they are standing, why and to where they have come. Someone leads them like a child saying, "you continue standing here, I will come back," and they disappear,...and never return. What concerns the statue is this: here he is a stranger, wandering, not able to recognize the people standing at his side, and he continues to stand. (67)

In the paragraph following, Salih makes an important comparison between the statues standing together in a line and the one standing by himself; "in its time therefore, I just say this: successful statues stand by their lonely selves in an alley. Yes, a good philosophy which exists in life is also a custom among statues: a great person is always a lonely person" (67). And the last sentence which Salih writes is that in the lonely statue's hand is the inevitable book which he spends his time reading.

In the next statue tale, "Those Who Stand Alone," the statue standing alone is Pushkin, a famous Russian writer. A fan of the writer Byron (an English writer popular in Uzbekistan and whose works have been translatednto Uzbek), passes Pushkin's statue and wonders why Pushkin is there and not Byron. The answer jokingly given is that Pushkin has fans in Uzbekistan, but not only that, Pushkin loved Uzbekistan even to the point of putting his life on the line in a duel for the republic. Salih sarcastically writes, "do you know the reason Pushkin dueled with Dante? The reason was Uzbekistan. If you pass by his [Pushkin's] side, he moves you because you know very well, great proletarian writer, how he loved ordinary people like you. Worship him as a brothe? (68).

Salih continues:

The weeping willow trees which surround the great poet slowly sing songs.

Usually while listening to songs Eastern people involuntarily move their heads with the music. Regretfully, sculptures cannot move their heads.

Particularly Pushkin. Because in Europe they don't move their heads. Europeans imitate any kind of melody by tapping their feet. Every passerby who strolls through Pushkin Alley, standing tapping his feet quietly and beautifully, will be a witness to Pushkin's standing quiet, listening to the unknown nation's music with his whole bronze body. (68)

Salih points out that statues of Pushkin are not found in the streets of London or Paris, but, "in any case, he [Pushkin] stands in the most beautiful crossroads of Tashkent” (68).

Pushkin, realizing then that a statue of Gorki is standing not too far away, breaks in asking Gorki how he came to be in Uzbekistan. The answer to Pushkin's question does not need to be stated for his readers, and Salih does not bother. In fact, Salih writes that at this question the statue of Gorki does not even turn to look since its neck is thick and tough. Because, "in order to turn their heads, at least one hundred years are needed. In the second place, your question is an extremely childish one. The ordinary winds which are able to move you and us cannot move the statues. It is very large social events, such as stormy revolutions which can move them" (68).

In the last of the three statue tales, 'The Meeting," Salih begins by saying that the character of the sculptor is evident in his creation. In other words, a statue represents the sculptor himself. "If a sculptor is a craftsman who is far-seeing, the statues which he created will also be far-seeing. And, if a sculptor is energetic, if he is feisty, he will describe his works in the manner he himself admires " (69). Salih goes on to describe two Russian stautues, Pushkin and Gorki. Thus these, statues represent Russian presence and Russian ideology in Uzbekistan.

Salih then tells how two statues, Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin and Aleksei Maksimovich Gorki, jump down from their pedestals and become live, moving figures. Like the statues in the first tale, they express the desire to become acquainted with one another and do not know where they are. Gorki has to inform Pushkin that he is somewhere in Central Asia Pushkin says, "I am extremely pleased to become acquainted with you. But excuse me, will you tell me: where am I?' Gorki answers, "in a way, a to speak truthfully we are not in Russia: you are in the country where I am standing" (69). They both long for Russia, wondering when they will return Pushkin says, "I longed to pour out all my words; not only birch trees, but the great river Volga, the city of Nizhniny Novgorod and its dear friend V1adimir Illich, but the solidarity of writers of realistic prose did not allow for this" (69). Pushkin declares they must return to Russia, so the two of them catch a flight to Moscow. Gorki, however, discovers he has left his walking-stick somewhere in Central Asia. Pushkin reassures him by saying they will get his stick back, but Gorki counters by reminding Pushkin that they do not know where they were in Central Asia. He states, 'We do not know the name of the city from which we flew" (70).

Salih finishes much as he began, referring to those who create the statues, stating that they will one day fall because of their passion for their own homeland and because they are strangers in Uzbekistan. "Therefore, if the passion which is in the sculptures is not false, if they did not deceive our eyes, having stood, they themselves will fall from the pedestal where they are standing now, and one day, without a doubt, they will make their way to any side they wish" (70). Salih sarcastically concludes: "We, who are great fans of your people, will open a new museum for the famous stick which they forgot” (70).

The first theme seen in "The Sculptures Who Lost Their Way" is that "a great person is always a lonely person" and someone who studies and think for himself. It is such individuals who are great people, not the ones standing together in a line who do not even know where they are. Perhaps these lonely statues are the great leaders---the ones with ideas who lead, and thus occupy a place of prominence apart from the others. Or perhaps Salih is referring to himself as a single statue alone with his ideas. As will be shown, Salih later tried to work for change within the political system rather than standing by himself outside. In this tale the statue stands alone holding a book, instead of his heart, in his hands. Thus, instead of being one who demonstrates his vulnerability to the system by holding his heart in his hands like those statues standing in line, he reads a book in order to gain knowledge. Salih says that those who stand alone, off in an obscure alley, are the ones who have ideas gained from reading books (books probably without illustrations, if one remembers his "Letter to My Younger Brother”)- the ones who think for themselves. These are the great people, not the ones standing in line who do not even know where they are.

The ignorance of Russians living in Uzbekistan and their insensitivity to Central Asian environment and culture is a feature of all three statue tales. In "The Sculptures Who Lost Their Way," Salih writes that the statues do not know the places to which they have come; they are strangers, wandering around trying to recognize people. The statues may be Slavs, transplanted in Central Asia, or they may even be Uzbeks, also lost and confused in their own land as a result of following Communist Party dictates. Those in line are trying to get acquainted with each other so that they will at least have something in common. The statues in "Those Who Stand Alone" do not understand the local culture where people move their heads in time with music rather than tapping their feet. And in the previous statue tale, when Gorki admits he and Pushkin do not know the name of the city from which they came, Salih seems to poke fun at the Russians because of their presence in Uzbekistan in the first place, and their ignorance in not knowing exactly where they were.

In the next discussion of Russian presence Salih suggests that Russians do not even belong in Central Asia. In "Those Who Stand Alone," Salih begins by placing Pushkin's statue alone, thus admitting, because of his emphasis in "The Sculptures Who Lost Their Way," that Pushkin is a great writer. But because of the sarcasm which follows, describing how much Pushkin supposedly loved Uzbekistan, Salih seems to imply that although Pushkin is great, his statue does not belong in Central Asia. And when Salih points out that statues of Pushkin are not in London or Paris, he appears to suggest they are not there because those nations have no desire for a Russian sculpture of Pushkin: they have their own heroes such as Byron to commemorate. Underlying these statements is the thought that Uzbeks do not particularly want a statue of Pushkin either, but the statue is there because of Moscow's domination. In "The Meeting," Salih goes even further when he writes that Pushkin and Gorki returned to Moscow, thus perhaps suggesting that Russians ought to leave Central Asia, and maybe even expressing the hope that someday they will. When Gorki discovers he has left his walking stick somewhere in Central Asia, Salih says Uzbeks will open a museum just for that infamous stick. In writing this, Salih seems to be hoping that one day Uzbeks will immortalize the Soviet regime in a museum, preserving the Russian presence only as something of the past, laughing because they now possess that stupid stick which was so precious to Gorki, but could not find his way back to retrieve it.

The final description of Russian presence seen in the three tales is Russians' unwillingness to change. Salih implies in "Those Who Stand Alone" that Russians are stubborn and not able to changee unless a revolution occurs. Yet in a few years the "one hundred years" were up, as glasnost and perestroika began to slowly move the "thick necks" of the Soviet empire. They were no "ordinary winds," and the "stormy revolution" really was no revolution at all but the internal collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The final theme of Salih's writing in this period concerns the value of the Uzbek language. This theme is expressed in two poems-perhaps in poetry and not prose because Salih is first of all a poet, and therefore he expresses that which is most meaningful to him in this manner. “In An Alien Land” written in 1981 (but not published until 1986), he never mentions the Uzbek language, but the message is nevertheless clear: I give my own greetings in another language, but the message is nevertheless clear:

They invite me to breakfast in another language.

Like a blind man in the streets of the city

They lead me in only three or four words of another language.

They show me a star in another language.

They awaken me in the dawn in that language.

I am afraid not of my own language

But forgetting those three or four words

In this great city.

If my homeland is my dream,

The homeland is my dream because,

I speak in my own language

Only in my dream.
(Alis-tebessum saiasi 105)

Simply from the title, "Ozge Elda," one knows that the sentiment expressed in this poem will be strong. The poem expresses Salih's frustration at having to use a language that is not his own in all aspects of life, from dawn until night. He feels like a stranger in his own hometown because the language spoken in the streets is Russian. His homeland does not exist. He can only dream of his own homeland, although ironically, he does live in Uzbekistan. And although he is not afraid of using his own language, he does fear it will soon become lost in the expanse of Russian used in the city. He is now living "in an alien land." But fortunately, he is still able to speak his mother tongue in his dreams; this means there is still hope and the language has not been lost forever.

"Speak in Turki" written in 1982 but not published until 1990, describes the paradox of speaking in Uzbek and how it should be used to express one's deep emotions. Salih writes that on all occasions, whatever the mood, one should speak in "Turki":

It is easy to speak in Turki,

It is not so very difficult to speak in Turki.

It is so very enjoyable to speak in this language, so very bitter.

If your mood is merry, if you awake on the right side of the bed.

If you have no regret from the day,

If your faith is in the future-speak in Turki.

If you love someone,

And love does not fit in your heart-speak in Turki

If you hate someone,

If your hatred catches in your throat-speak in Turki.

(Arzu Fuqarasi 121)

Together these two poems, although they express the love and importance Salih feels in the language and his desire that Uzbek be spoken more, do not demand its increased use as his later writing does.

All the pieces enumerated here reflect the political situation of the time-control from the center-because none were published when Salih wrote them. Muhammad Salih was concerned about Russian presence and influence in Uzbekistan. He wanted Uzbeks to wake up, to think for themselves about what was going on around them. He also felt that Ianguage was an important issue. Yet he was not able to write in a straightforward manner as he does later. Perhaps at this time. Salih wrote in a flowing, flowery language, utilizing illusion and imagery, in hopes of getting his message across by having his works published. He uses Russian statues to represent Russian presence in Uzbekistan; the "tough, thick necks" of the statues depict Russian stubbornness, and book illustrations represent Soviet ideology. From 1986 onward, as is demonstrated in the next period, his style became more candid as political openness in society increased.