Framing Andijon, narrating the nation: Islam Karimov's account of the events of 13 May 2005

Abstract

Tashkent's handling of anti-government protests and violence in the city of Andijon on 13 May 2005 has generated enormous controversy and had significant political repercussions. However, there has been no detailed analysis of rival interpretations of what happened. This paper begins to redress this lacuna by analysing a book on the subject authored by the President of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov. Using framing theory, it identifies four key themes deployed in the narrative to delegitimize the government's opponents: terrorism and criminality; inauthentic Uzbekness and deviant masculinity/religiosity; constitutional illegitimacy; and the subversion of the scientific laws of states. Significantly for an understanding of regime legitimization and nationalism in Uzbekistan, no recourse is made to the government's intellectual framework known as the ‘ideology of national independence’. The paper points to the need for further research to enable scholars to develop a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the contemporary politicization of national belonging in independent Uzbekistan.

Keywords:

• nationalism
• regime legitimization
• masculinity
• Islam
• Uzbekistan

Notes

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, on 7 December 2006. The author would like to thank the convenor, Bhavna Dave, and participants for their comments and suggestions. In addition, the author is grateful to Stuart Horsman, Andrew March, Deniz Kandiyoti and two referees, one anonymous and the other Johan Rasanayagam, for their extremely valuable comments.

By early 2008 some indications of a shift could be discerned with mutual concessions such as a partial lifting of sanctions on the part of the EU and the release of some prisoners in Uzbekistan.

For an excellent example of the complexities of assessing what people actually mean when they ostensibly approve of President Karimov's deployment of his ideology of national independence against Islamist opponents, see, inter alia, Louw (2007); for an analysis of poetry of opposition to the Andijon crackdown, see Kendzior's (2007) use of the Andijon events to address broader issues of the politicization of the articulation of visions of Uzbek identity.

For an example of this type of argument, see Horsman (2005).

Useful recent examples highlighting these debates are Patnaik (2003) and Ilkhamov (2006a).

Print runs are listed along with other bibliographic details in Uzbekistani books.

The book was published in Uzbek and all translations are the author's own.

Karimov appears to base many of his claims of the alleged plot around the Andijon incident on telephone conversations made by the gunmen who seized the Hokimiyat and secretly recorded by the security services. He promises to present this ‘hard evidence’ to society in due time (p. 8). These sources, if they exist, along with recordings of the negotiations between government and gunmen, would be very valuable in assessing the accuracy of key claims in various accounts of the Andijon incident.

For an informed discussion of the use of this term by a scholar sceptical of its utility, see Ilkhamov (2006b).

‘Andijonda ro'y bergan xunrezliklar’.

In the same section, Karimov writes of the gunmen that ‘In my opinion, people who do not think of the afterlife cannot live a life of conscience’ (p. 17). These were wicked men who lived for the moment, not in the consciousness of eventual judgement: thus Karimov, not them, was the true Muslim.

A puzzling piece of rhetoric: British Paratroopers in Northern Ireland, Chinese soldiers in Beijing and American forces in Iraq have, in recent times, all fired on unarmed protestors.

Numerous commentators, for example, the US State Department, Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group have questioned this. For a succinct analysis see Akiner (2004). However, Karimov's narrative occludes any discussion of this.

Rangli inqiloblar. This term refers to the ‘Lemon Revolution’ in Georgia in 2004, the ‘Orange Revolution’ in Ukraine in December 2004, and the ‘Tulip Revolution’ in Kyrgyzstan in March 2005.

He does not indicate to which of Brezinzski's writings he is referring.

yangi inson, p. 51.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nick Megoran

*Email: [email protected]