Adib Xolid “O’zbekiston tavalludi” haqida || Adib Khalid about “Making Uzbekistan”
English 🇬🇧 ⏬👇
AQSHdagi Carleton kolleji professori hisoblanuvchi Adib Xolidning o’zbek tiliga “O’zbekiston tavalludi” nomi ostida tarjima qilingan kitobi mamlakatimiz tarixidagi o’ta murakkab jarayon hisoblanuvchi 1917 yildan 1932 yilgacha va uning atrofida sodir bo’lgan voqea hodisalarni tilga oladi. Muallifga ko’ra 1924-yilda tashkil topgan O’zbekiston bu ko’p jihatdan inqilobdan oldingi ziyolilarning davomli merosi bo’lgan. Sovet inqilobi davrigacha zamonaviy yangi ziyolilar (jadidlar) xurofotchi dindorlar, va qoloqlik va boshboshdoqlik domidagi to’ralarga qarshi aqliy va fikriy janga kirishgan, o’z tarafdorlarining safini jonlari va mollarini qurbon qilib bo’lsa ham ancha kengaytirib, “Musulmon Turkistonida” yangi zamonaviy davlat bunyod qilish uchun zamin hozirlab qo’yishgan edi. Eskilar va yangilar (jadidlar) orasidagi bahsda har ikki tomonni ham batamom haq yoki mutlaqo nohaqqa chiqarish noto’g’ridir.
Chor Rossiyasi davridagi ziyolilar kuch va qurol yordamida zamonaviy, millat manfaatlariga mos, huquqiy davlat tuzishlari imkonsiz ekanligini famlaganlari uchun ham muzokara va murosa yo’lini tutganlar. Alohida davlat tuzish uchun mavjud xonliklar va amirliklarga, undan so’ng esa Chor Rossiyasiga qarshi chiqish o’z joniga suiqasd qilish bilan barobar edi. Ular juda uzoqni ko’zlab o’z hisoblaridan va yoki xayriya jamg’armalarini tashkil qilib gazeta jurnallar chiqara boshladilar, teatr orqali mudroq yotgan xalqning ongini uyg’ota boshladilar. Ziyolilar va ularga ergashuvchilarda sekin astalik bilan adolatga va teng huquqlilikka tashnalik hissi uyg’ona boshladi. O’rta Osiyoda paralel reallikda yashayotgan mahalliy xalq va yevropaliklar orasidagi tafovutni buzib ko’proq imtiyozlarga erishish jadidlarning orzulari edi. 1917 -yilgi Fevral inqilobi ana shunday tenglikni va’da qilmoqda edi. Biroq amalda haqiqiy tenglik bo’ldimi yoki yo’q, muallif o’quvchi bilan birgalikda ana shu savolga javob izlaydi. Agar barchasi sovetlar va’da qilganiday adolatli va tenglik asosida bo’lgan bo’lsa unda nima uchun norozilik kayfiyati aholining katta qismini qamrab olgan ? Muallif bizning qulog’imiz “bosmachilik harakati” yoki “ozodlik uchun kurash” deb eshitishni o’rganib qolgan tarixiy vaziyatlarni “markaziy osiyocha fuqarolik urushi” deb ataydi va menimcha ham o’sha tarixiy jarayonlarga nisbabat bu juda xolis nomlanish.
Kitobda shuningdek dindorlarning tazyiqqa uchrashi, muqaddas islom diniga qarshi kurash, va bunda hukumatga yoqish uchun jonbozlik ko’rsatgan ba’zi jadid “bobolarimiz”, masjid va madrasalarning ommaviy yopilishi kabi o’g’riqli mavzular ham tilga olinadi. Dinga qarshi kurash muallifning ta’kidlanishicha General Kaufmanning islom dinini har qanday rasmiy maqomdan mosuvo qilish, vaqf institutlarini keskin qisqartirish yoki batamom tugatish, dindorlarni shunchaki e’tibordan chetda qoldirish ko’rinishida boshlangan.
Asarda Mustafo Choqoy, G’ozi Yunus, Turar Risqulov kabi murakkab shaxsiyatli qahramonlarning nomlari keltirilgan va tarixlari qisqacha bayon qilingan. Shu kabi musulmon ziyolilar sa’y harakati bilan musulmon komunistlari manfaatlari ancha vaqtgacha himoya qilingan, ammo muallifning ta’kidlashicha ularning talablari Lenin chizgan chiziqdan ancha chiqib ketgan. Uzun tashlab qo’yilgan arqonlar tes orada tortib dinga bo’lgan tazyiq yangicha kuchliroq to’lqinda davom etadi. Asarni o’qish davomida biz aziz Jadid bobolarimiz sifatida ko’klarga ko’tarib yuradigan ba’zi qahramonlarning o’zlarini dinsiz qilib ko’rsatishga urinib obro’ orttirishga tirishganlari, ateizmni targ’ib qilishda kimo’zarga maqolalar yozishganini o’qib hayratlandim. Ularning orasida Fitrat ajralib turadi. U hattoki Pochamir nomli obrazi orqali din ahkomlari, muqaddas Islom e’tiqodini kulgi qiladi. Masalan, Pochamirni narigi dunyoda ham nasha bor ekanmi degan o’y tashvishga soladi. Fitrat bangi “qahramonining qiyomatda sur ovozidan uyg’onib, qip yalang’och odamlarning sarosima qilishlarni tasvirlaydi. Muallifning yozishicha: “Fitratning (Shaytonning tangriga isyoni) asari bilan Salmon Rushdining 1988-yilda yozilgan Shaytoniy oyatlar asari o‘rtasida o‘xshashliklarni ko‘rishimiz mumkin. Unda ham Shayton va Muhammad payg‘ambarning xotinlari asosiy mavzulardan biri sifatida ishlatilgan bo‘lib, islomiy rivoyatlarni rad etishga xizmat qiladi.”
O‘sha o‘n yillik davomida mavjud bo‘lgan ruhoniylarga qarshi kayfiyat endilikda Sovet hukumatining ruxsatini olgan ateistik targ‘ibot darajasiga ko‘tarildi. Dinsizlar jangovarlari uyushmasining bo‘limlari musulmon hududlarida tashkil etila boshlandi va 1928-yil noyabr oyida birinchi O‘zbekiston Dinsizlar Qurultoyi bo‘lib o‘tdi. O‘sha bahorda ilk bor nashr etilgan o‘zbek tilidagi Xudosizlar (Dinsizlar) jurnali rus tilidan ko‘plab tarjimalarni e’lon qilgan bo‘lib, ular orqali ateizmning dastlabki nazariy asoslari o‘zbek tiliga kiritildi.
Dinga qarshi kurash shunaqangi avjiga chiqdiki, “G‘ijduvonda partiya bo’limi kotibi olti nafar boshqa faollar bilan birgalikda mahalliy masjidni yopishga qaror qildi. Ular qishloq bo‘ylab yurib, masjidni yopish uchun dehqonlardan imzo yig‘ar ekanlar, qarshilik bildirganlarni qishloqdan chiqarib yuborish bilan tahdid qildilar. Qishloqning sobiq oqsoqoli Ashur oqsoqol imzo qo‘ygan bo‘lsa-da, baribir namoz vaqti minora tepasiga chiqib, hovliga peshob qilishga majbur qilindi”( A. Mitrofanov, “K itogam partchistki v natsrespublikakh i oblastiakh,” Revoliutsiia i natsional′nosti, 1930, no. 2, 37; Keller, To Moscow, Not Mecca, 205–206) .
Asaka qishlog‘ida madaniyat xodimlari mahalliy uyushmasining yig‘ilishida shunday qaror qabul qilindi: kimki xotinini ro‘molini yechishga majbur qilsa, uning ismi “Qizil doska”ga yoziladi; buni bajarmaganlar esa uyushmadan (agar partiya a’zosi bo‘lsa — partiyadan ham) chiqariladi va ishdan bo‘shatiladi (RGASPI,f.62,op.2,d.883,l.50(19.06.1927).
Kitobda yuqoridagi kabi o’nlab misollar faktlar asosida keltirilgan-ki, hozirda ham yuzlab masjid va madrasalarning yopiq turganligi inobatga olinsa dinga qarshi kurash sovet ittifoqining o’ta muhim siyosati bo’lganligini anglash va uning ko’lami qanchalar ulkan bo’lganligini fahmlash qiyin emas.
Muallifning o’zbeklik va tojiklik borasidagi bahslari ham qiziq. Adib Xolidga ko’ra “Asrlar davomida turkiyzabon qabilalarning ko‘chishi va joylashuvi turkiy hamda forsiyzabonlar o‘rtasida chuqur o‘zaro uyg‘unlikni vujudga keltirgan edi. Bu esa ko’p sonli o‘zaro nikohlar va ikki tillilikka olib kelgan. Shuning uchun “o‘zbek” yoki “turk”ni “tojik” yoki “eronlik”dan ajratish oddiygina bir idishdagi turfa rangli sharchalarni ajratishdek oddiy ish emas edi. Aksincha, forsiy va turkiy tillarda so‘zlashuvchilar bir-birlari bilan chambarchas bog‘liq hayot kechirganlar. Ularning urf-odatlari va amaliyotlari bir-biriga o‘xshash bo‘lgan, ikki tillilik odatiy holga aylangan va til hech qachon shaxsiylikni belgilovchi asosiy omil bo‘lmagan”. “Agar Chigʻatoychilar tasavvuridagi oʻzbek millati davlatchilik anʼanasiga tayanayotgan boʻlsa, Ayniy tasvirlagan tojik millati esa hech qanday hukmronlikka ega boʻlmasa-da, baribir mavjud edi; aksincha, u bosqinchilarini madaniylashtirishga muvaffaq boʻlgan.
Xulosa qilib aytadigan bo’lsam, muallif biz xayolimizga keltirishga ham cho’chiydigan mavzularni dadil tilga olib, uni muhokamaga tashlaydi. O’quvchi bilan aqliy bahslar tavomida yoqori saviyadagi xolislikni saqlab qoladi. Balki asli o’zbekistonlik bo’lmagani uchun bo’lsa kerak aslo hissiyotga berilmaydi, uni “kim aybdor?”, “aslida qanday bo’lishi kerak edi?”, “19-asrdagi katta o’yinda chor hukumati emas, britaniyaliklarning qo’li baland kelsa voqealar qanday kechar edi” kabi savollardan ko’ra “aslida qanday bo’lgan”ligi ko’proq qiziqtiradi.
Adeeb Khalid, a professor at Carleton College in the United States, authored a book that was translated into Uzbek under the title O’zbekiston tavalludi (The Birth of Uzbekistan). The book explores one of the most complex and sensitive periods in our national history—from 1917 to 1932—and the key events surrounding those years.
According to the author, the establishment of Uzbekistan in 1924 was in many ways the continuation of the legacy of pre-revolutionary intellectuals. Before the Soviet Revolution, modern reformist intellectuals known as the Jadids had launched an intellectual and ideological struggle against superstitious religious figures and the outdated, chaotic leadership of local elites. Through tremendous personal sacrifice—risking both their lives and wealth—they laid the groundwork for building a modern nation-state in “Muslim Turkestan.”
In the debates between the old guard and the Jadids, it’s unfair to declare either side completely right or completely wrong. Intellectuals during the Tsarist era, realizing that building a modern and just nation aligned with the people’s interests would not be possible through force or arms, chose the path of negotiation and compromise. Calling for an independent state by challenging the existing khanates or the Russian Empire would have been suicidal. Instead, they pursued change through long-term vision: they funded newspapers and journals from their own pockets or through charitable foundations and used theater to awaken public consciousness.
Gradually, a thirst for justice and equality took hold among intellectuals and their followers. The stark contrast between the everyday lives of local people and privileged Europeans living in parallel realities across Central Asia was something the Jadids dreamed of breaking down. The February Revolution of 1917 promised such equality—but the book raises the key question: did that promise ever materialize in practice?
If everything had truly unfolded in the just and equal way the Soviets had promised, why then did such widespread dissatisfaction take hold among the people? Khalid invites readers to explore this very question with him.
What we’ve long been taught to call the “Basmachi Movement” or the “fight for freedom,” the author refers to as a Central Asian civil war—a term I believe captures the reality far more accurately and objectively.
The book also covers painful topics such as the persecution of religious believers, the aggressive anti-Islam campaigns, and the role of certain Jadid figures who, seeking favor with the authorities, played active roles in closing mosques and madrasas. As the author notes, the Soviet campaign against religion began with General Kaufman’s efforts to strip Islam of any official status, cut down the waqf (Islamic endowment) system, and sideline religious leaders altogether.
Prominent figures like Mustafa Chokay, G’ozi Yunus, and Turar Ryskulov are also discussed. Thanks to efforts by such Muslim intellectuals, the interests of Muslim Communists were protected for a time—but as the author explains, their demands eventually drifted too far from Lenin’s red line. And soon, harsher waves of religious repression resumed.
As I read the book, I was surprised to discover that some of the figures we revere as our enlightened Jadid forefathers gained influence by distancing themselves from religion, even contributing to atheist propaganda. Among them, Fitrat stands out. In his work, through the fictional character “Pochamir,” he mocks Islamic beliefs and rituals—for example, portraying Pochamir as worrying about whether cannabis would be available in the afterlife. Fitrat vividly describes his drug-addicted “hero” waking up on Judgment Day to the sound of the trumpet, confused and surrounded by naked people in chaos.
The author writes: “We might note resemblances between Fitrat’s work and that of Salman Rushdie, whose Satanic Verses (1988) also uses Satan and Muhammad’s wives as major topoi to subvert the Islamic narrative.”
Throughout the 1920s, anticlerical sentiment escalated into full-blown atheist propaganda with official Soviet backing. Branches of the League of the Militant Godless were set up in Muslim areas, and in November 1928, the First Congress of the Godless of Uzbekistan was held. That spring, a new Uzbek-language journal, Xudosizlar (The Godless), began publishing Russian translations that introduced atheism’s theoretical foundations to the Uzbek-speaking public.
The campaign against religion reached extreme levels. In G‘ijduvon, the party cell secretary and six other activists decided to close the local mosque. They went around the village collecting signatures for its closure, threatening to expel anyone who refused. One elderly village leader, Ashur Oqsoqol, signed under pressure but was still forced to climb the minaret and urinate into the courtyard during prayer time.
(A. Mitrofanov, “Kitogam partchistki v natsrespublikakh i oblastiakh,” Revoliutsiia i natsional′nosti, 1930, no. 2, pp. 37; Keller, To Moscow, Not Mecca, pp. 205–206.). In the village of Asaka, a local cultural workers’ union decided that any member who unveiled his wife would be honored by having his name placed on the “Red Board.” Those who refused would be expelled from the union (and from the Party, if applicable) and fired from their jobs.
(RGASPI, f.62, op.2, d.883, l.50 – June 19, 1927). The book provides many such well-documented examples. When we consider that even today, hundreds of mosques and madrasas remain closed, it’s easy to grasp how serious and far-reaching the Soviet campaign against religion really was.
Khalid’s discussion of “Uzbek” and “Tajik” identity is equally fascinating. According to him:
“Centuries of migration and settlement by Turkic-speaking tribes had created a deep symbiosis between Turkic and Persian speakers that resulted in high rates of intermarriage and of bilingualism. Separating ‘Uzbek’ or ‘Turk’ from ‘Tajik’ or ‘Iranian’ was not simply a matter of sorting different-colored marbles from a jar. Rather, Persian and Turkic speakers lived deeply interconnected lives, in which customs and practices were identical, bilingualism was common, and language was never a marker of identity.”
He continues: “If the Chaghatayist vision of the Uzbek nation centered on a tradition of statehood, Ayni’s Tajik nation existed despite the lack of dominion; instead, it civilized its conquerors.”
Final Thoughts
The author boldly engages with topics that many of us would hesitate to even imagine discussing, much less write about. He maintains a high level of intellectual integrity throughout, never succumbing to emotional bias—perhaps precisely because he is not originally from Uzbekistan. Rather than getting lost in the questions of “who was to blame?” or “how should it have been?” or speculative alternatives like “what if the British had won the Great Game in the 19th century?”—he’s far more concerned with uncovering what actually happened.
And in doing so, he invites us to face our past with honesty, clarity, and a fresh perspective.