Bashkirs and Tatars: differences in appearance and character

Once the Tatars and Bashkirs lived together and built a great empire. They speak close languages, but now these relationships sometimes cease to be fraternal. The people, who historically dominated the region for centuries, I am sure that the language of the people, also living for centuries in the neighborhood, is just a dialect of the great and ancient language. Moreover, even the existence of an independent neighbor is questionable: "We, they say, are a single nation." Indeed, in the region where Bashkirs and Tatars live, the differences in the everyday way are often equal to zero.

Causes of contradictions

Neighbor does not agree. "You live on your own, and we will do the same." Neighbors are confident in their identity, love their language, build their own state. Such claims to independence to the dominant people seem to be a whim. They are sure that the neighboring country is an artificial formation. First of all, this message is put forward that ethnic Tatars predominate in a significant part of Bashkortostan, and Bashkirs, in addition, often speak Tatar. The natural desire of the prevailing population on the territory is to make your language public and to ensure that all residents use it. It is necessary to prove that the owners of this land are Bashkirs, and the Tatars of difference in mentality would have to admit.

However, this does not work. Tatars and Bashkirs are one people, they are confident in Tatarstan and numerous Tatar settlements of Bashkortostan. Bashkirov is accused of artificial assimilation and imposition of language. This together with the requirement that the Tatar language become the second state in Tatarstan.

So, historical domination, 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 because these contradictions are insignificant. They are, most likely, much stronger than Russian-Ukrainian ones. And they do not know about them at all because Russians do not care what Chuvash, Tatars and Bashkirs live by. And also Adygheans, Shorians, Nenets and Dolgans. And, of course, the Yakuts.

Both the Tatars and the Bashkirs are as close to the Russian people as all the other peoples of the former USSR. This is not counting small nations, which are also a huge list. Here is a picture of Bashkirs and Tatars. Differences photo is transmitted only in costumes. One family!

It is difficult to reconcile without a revival of a culture of dialogue with the almost completed degeneration of national elites: the Bashkirs and Tatars are enmity. Although the conflicts here have not gone so far as, say, in the Caucasus, where former Polovtsians (Kumyks) never lived in peace with mountain peoples. This element can not be suppressed any more, except for the use of force methods. Tatars and Bashkirs have not lost everything.

National difficulties

Consider the ethnic composition closer. The last census showed 29% of the Bashkirs in Bashkortostan. Tatars accounted for 25%. Under Soviet power, the censuses showed an approximately equal number of both. Now the Tatars accuse Bashkortost of postsignals and assimilation, and the Bashkirs argue that the "lurking" Bashkirs have returned to their identity. Nevertheless, most of all in Bashkortostan Russian - 36%, and what they think about it, no one asks.

Russians live mainly in cities, and in the countryside Bashkirs and Tatars predominate, 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 such as the Bashkirs and Tatars raised. The difference in the nature of the relationship is so great that the conflict of local Turks with local Russians is much less likely.

From the history of the state

Historically, Russia has developed from territories where different nationalities live, like a patchwork quilt. And after the revolution, naturally, the question of self-determination of all these peoples arose. In the early years of Soviet power, the border of Bashkiria was formed, which included such a large number of Tatars in its territory. Tataria proposed its projects, an amazing unanimity was shown by both the Socialist-Revolutionaries of the Idel-Ural and the Bolsheviks of the Tatar-Bashkir Soviet Republic. A single state and a single people were supposed.

However, the Bashkirs, who were in the Russian Empire a military class, like the Cossacks, formed an army and seized power in the Urals. Soviet Russia accepted them after signing the treaty. It said that Little Bashkurdistan, where ethnic Bashkirs lived, would exist under Bashkir rule. The terms of the treaty were, of course, broken from time to time, the Bashkirs rebelled, but in the end, in 1922 almost the entire Ufa province was already part of the Bashkir ASSR. After this, there were still some changes in the borders: Bashkortostan lost remote areas inhabited purely by the Bashkirs, but all resigned.

Today, the borders of Bashkortostan are part of the national consciousness of the Bashkirs, and they do not intend to surrender. That is why the Bashkirs and Tatars, the difference between which the Russian, for example, is not very visible, are trying to dissolve each other in themselves. While the number of Tatars in Bashkiria is comparable to the number of Bashkirs, Bashkir territorial formation itself is under constant threat. Of course, the Tatars living in Bashkortostan resist with all their might and want a united national state.

Nonaggression pact

Ethnic conflict between the Tatars and Bashkirs of Russia was frozen. But he is not killed, and there is a risk that one day he will break free. If the republics were sovereign, then it is unlikely that the conflict would remain in peace for a long time, but, at least, it is possible to try. The nationalist state is always bad: here you can remember the Ossetians and Abkhazians, the frightened nationalist projects of Georgia, the Gagauzes among the Moldovans, the Serbs among the Croats. Just like Tatars do not want to join the culture of the Bashkirs, leaving their claims to their own.

While the blood has not spilled, and the claims are already announced, one can expect a peaceful dialogue and a full resolution of the contradictions. The difference between Tatars and Bashkirs in views can be overcome.

So, what are the claims of the parties? Bashkirs want the inviolability of borders and the concept of the Bashkir state. Tatars do not want to lose leadership in the region. Tatars of Bashkortostan want their own identity and their language. And we must not forget that in Tatarstan there is a great number of nationalists who want one Big Tatarstan.

Coordination of interests

Bashkirs want "Bashkir" in their territory - let it be received together with the inviolability of borders. Tatars do not want assimilation - let them get guarantees that they will not impose Bashkir identity and Bashkir language. Tatarstan wants to be a leader in the region - it should be content with equality.

All people of Bashkortostan should have the right to receive education in their native language (with compulsory study of Bashkir as a separate subject). The Tatar language can be used in Bashkortostan authorities, but it will not become an official language along with the Bashkir language.

Bashkortostan can introduce national quotas so that the role of the Bashkirs becomes the leading one, but there was also the representation of other peoples, and also should refuse to assimilate the Tatars and manipulate censuses of the population. Tatarstan will refuse territorial claims and from granting dual citizenship. Bashkortostan renounces its claims to national-territorial autonomy. But there is still no hope that such a dialogue will take place soon.

Justice lives in hell, and in paradise - only love

Such a plan certainly seems unfair to either side. However, what is the alternative, what will she enjoy? The difference between Tatars and Bashkirs in this case does not exist, and it will be bad for everyone. On the one hand, the Tatars must understand that peace is the guarantee of their claim to leadership. Tatars living in Bashkortostan will serve as a link between the republics.

And if the war, even the victorious, happens, Tatarstan gets the worst enemy at the borders, plus this, does not see international legitimacy, but there will be a lot of suspicion from a number of located 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: under the national dictatorship, ethnic cleansing. It does not bode well for Bashkortostan - neither in international status, nor in relations with its closest neighbors.

Now about the Russians, of whom 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 predominance of the Russian language in business, in all media and in book publishing, and public administration is almost entirely conducted in Russian, even where the number of Russian people is small.

In Bashkortostan it is easy to go on a career ladder, not knowing neither Tatar nor Bashkir. But it's even funny to talk about this if a person does not know Russian. You can not compare the teaching of Bashkir and Tatar to Russian children with the teaching of Russian Tatars and Bashkirs. Russian language is owned by all without exception and in the fullest extent, which can not be said about the possession of the Russian national language of the republics.

Russians do not care, "Bashkirization" will come or "tatarization" - in any case within the next few decades at least the share of the Russian language will be much higher than the share of any national. So it happened, despite all the claims to equality and justice. And political representation can be distributed by agreement, just as ordinary Bashkirs and Tatars want. The differences between them are not significant 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

The hope for an improvement in Bashkir-Tatar relations appeared after the departure of President M. Rakhimov. Presidents of the republics exchanged visits. In Ufa, the Tatar TV channel TNV began its work as a correspondent point.

The cultural and economic cooperation of these republics has increased. Although unresolved problems have not gone anywhere and there are numerous contradictions in the relations of the two countries. In fact, it is strange that the elites of the peoples closest to the language and the culture that has the same culture do not get a joint approach to the problems of nation-building.

Where does this different vision of ethnopolitical space come from? The year 1917 with its erroneous, maybe, solutions is incredibly far from the present moment, but nevertheless, the conflicts hidden there still influence the mentality of the two fraternal peoples.

Causes of contradictions

If you dig around, you can distinguish from the canvas events of age-old prescription of the five main factors of this development. The first is subjective, the others are quite objective.

1. Dislike and complete lack of mutual understanding between the leaders Zaki Validi and Gayaz Iskhaki.

Zaki Validi was the leader of the Bashkir liberation movement from 1917 to 1920. Orientalist, historian, doctor of philosophy, professor and honorary member of the University of Manchester in the future. In the meantime, it's just a leader.

Gayaz Iskhaki is the leader of the national movement of Tataria, publisher and writer, publicist and politician. A zealous Muslim - he dominated the preparation, and after the first congress of Muslims in pre-revolutionary Moscow. Intelligent, educated people, why not agreed?

2. The land issue was considered by the Tatars and the Bashkirs in different ways.

Tatars for 365 years from the moment of colonization gradually lost all the lands captured 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, the tsar's decree in Tataria eliminated the feudal lords, and the lands were transferred to the Russian settlers and the treasury. Since then, landlessness has become a real disaster for the Tatars.

A different situation has developed in the territories of the Bashkirs, who possessed patrimonial law in the tsarist empire and who 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 from both Russia and the surrounding lands came to Bashkiria. A multinational peasantry was formed. The land question was always very acute in Bashkiria, and after 1917 it became a factor for the formation of the national movement.

3. Pure geographical location of Tatar and Bashkir lands.

The lands of the Tatars were in the very depths of the Empire, they had no borders with any marginal region, capable of uniting efforts in the struggle for common interests. Bashkiria almost bordered on Kazakhstan - fifty kilometers of Russian land were separated by these republics from each other. The probability of the union was very high.

4. Some differences in the system of settlement of Bashkirs and Tatars in the Russian Empire.

The dispersion of the Tatars before the revolution, even on their lands, is not the overwhelming majority, against the Bashkirs who make up the vast majority on their lands.

5. Different cultural and educational levels of Bashkirs and Tatars.

With dispersed settling of Tatars, their main weapon was the intellect, high moral qualities and organization. Bashkir forces did not have madrassas and intelligence. They owned the land, were militarized and ready at any time to stand up for their independence.

Despite all these points, Bashkirs and Tatars can be quite friendly. Photos in the article demonstrate many moments of really fraternal and good-neighborly relations.