Send message to Author

Paper abstract:

This paper analyzes the complexities of Gagauz ethnonationalist ideology in the contexts of political autonomy and nation-sate incongruence. I will analyze Moldovan law regarding the territorial and legislative status of the Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia. Gagauz citizens and leaders often utilize the explicit stipulations of this legislation – the Constitution in particular – as justifications for establishing complete Gagauz independence. The Gagauz selectively accentuate their own cultural, linguistic, and political borders of interpellation with Turkic, European, Christian, and Russophone nations. Analyzing modern instances of Gagauz ethnonational rhetoric on EU membership, I will expound the implications of current Gagauz political alignments between the Russian Federation and the European Union. My research findings demonstrate that Gagauz view potential Moldovan EU membership as a threat to highly sensitive aspects of Gagauz ethnonational identity and political autonomy. From the Gagauz perspective, EU membership represents a violation of Moldovan constitutional pre-conditions regarding territorial sovereignty. My research contributes a nuanced approach toward the distinct forms of autonomy that Gagauz leaders articulate as optimal for their national future. I will demonstrate the necessity of understanding Gagauz identity as a modern paradigm of post-Soviet Turkic nationalism utilizing Moldovan legislative documents, Gagauz election data, and analysis of Gagauz leaders’ rhetoric on Russia-EU tensions. In light of the historical-cultural premises that have led to the war in Ukraine, evaluating the role of Turkic Christian Gagauz in supporting or hindering Moldovan EU integration provides a key to understanding the mutual effects between volatile political landscapes, nation-state incongruence, and ethnonationalist rhetoric.

Send message to Author

Paper abstract:

This paper would map this transition of Minority Nationality question into an antagonistic contradiction in the context of Uyghurs of Xinjiang (East Turkestan) by focussing on the role played by Chinese state and the Communist Party of China. This study engages with a particular example of the coupling of majoritarian culture and state, which have also emerged as a global phenomenon. The question of ‘culture’ has become a central point of contention between Uyghurs and Chinese establishment. This paper primarily focuses on the effect of Chinese policies on three aspects of Uyghur culture: language, religion, and national identity, and their role in transforming the minority nationality question into an antagonistic contradiction. Language, religion and Meshrep thus have assumed new centrality in consolidation and assertion of Uyghur National Identity. Chinese policies towards ethnic minorities have created a sense of ‘other’ in the Chinese society. The notorious internment camps parcelling “re-education” and mass detention is but one extreme manifestation of the new development in Xinjiang. The sense of alienation also gave rise to separatist and secessionist tendencies in some instances. The wide scale repression of the Uyghurs is not new. Significantly, Chinese domestic policies emphasized upon ‘national unity’ undermining the autonomy of minority nationalities. This paper makes an effort to understand the formation of Uyghur ‘National Identity’ by comparing Mao’s and Xi’s policies. As the Chinese Communist Party celebrated its centenary anniversary on July 01, 2021, President Xi Jinping’s speech was dominated by nationalist fervour and call for “national rejuvenation”. One could not resist the temptation to compare Xi’s speech with another speech, delivered by Chairman Mao on February 27, 1957. Mao’s speech was called “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among People”. Mao talked about contradictions that marred the Chinese society and the Chinese people. Mao suggested that the contradictions among Chinese people were of friendly kind but can potentially turn into antagonistic contradictions, if not handled correctly. This paper picks up one such contradiction, “the question of minority nationalities”, which found its pride of place in Mao’s list. Interestingly, Jinping’s speech neither reflected upon the idea of “Chinese People” nor talked about its contradictions. This transformation of the minority nationality question into an antagonistic contradiction is partly a product of the policies adopted by the CCP. The paper utilizes the available reference materials and scholarly materials. This paper will add new perspective to the exiting body of work.

Send message to Author

Paper abstract:

This paper seeks to offer a better understanding of the self-perception of Uyghur youths in Almaty, seeking to identify both uniting factors and cleavages within the community. English language scholarship regarding the self-identity of Uyghurs in Kazakhstan has traditionally focused on proving or disproving the existence of three distinct groups: the yerliklär (‘locals’ who have lived in Kazakhstan and the adjacent Ili valley for over a hundred years), kegänlär (‘newcomers’ with roots in the migrations from China in the 1950s and 1960s), and the khitailiklär (the ‘Chinese’ or Uyghurs who have arrived in Kazakhstan since the dissolution of the Soviet Union). For the youths of Almaty, however, these terms sound at best unfamiliar, and, at worst, anachronistic to Uyghur life in an urbanised, Russified and increasingly internationalised milieu. In recent years the identity of the Uyghur youth has been shaped by a myriad of factors, including the growth of social justice movements in Almaty, the increasing prominence of a global Uyghur online community, the cut-off of links with the ‘historical homeland’ due to Covid-19 border closures, and, most significantly, by the widespread ‘re-education’ of Uyghurs in neighbouring Xinjiang following the region’s ‘de-extremification ordinance’ of 2017. A study of the Uyghur youth in Almaty is not only politically relevant, it also offers a useful building block which can be used in future studies regarding the self-perception of ‘transborder’ populations, ‘securitized’ peoples and the assimilation processes of ethnic minorities in Kazakhstan.

During the summer of 2022 I will conduct qualitative semi-structured interviews with the Uyghur youths of Almaty as part of my master’s thesis regarding the self-perception of ethnic minorities in Kazakhstan. The preliminary findings of these interviews will provide the basis for this paper.