Chairman of the National Council, professor Jamil Hasanli
Friends! I wrote this post because there were many requests regarding Nariman Narimanov. This is my view of Narimanov’s place in our history and destiny and is open to criticism.
Today, news came from Nakhchivan that the monument of Nariman Narimanov in the “Big Garden” area was taken to strengthen its base, and after the strengthening works are completed, the monument will be returned to its place. Things like this happen to us sometimes. A few years ago, they took out the flags from the Turkish martyrdom to “wash”.
After the information about the “Big Garden” of Nakhchivan spread, discussions about Narimanov’s monument in Baku began to heat up on the social network. A number of accusations were made against Narimanov and opinions were expressed about dismantling the statue. Undoubtedly, the accusations brought against Narimanov have both right and wrong points. They wrote a lot against Narimanov during his lifetime. After his death in 1925, they pursued his shadow for more than 30 years, and held many arrests under the name of “Narimanovshina”. Only in 1957, the Azerbaijani leadership was able to acquit him politically. But shortly after, the popularity of Narimanov’s name in Azerbaijan caused irritation in Moscow, they sent a commission, checked books and articles and stated that Narimanov’s name is mentioned 11 times on one page of a book and 13 times on one page of a separate article, this is nationalism. When Khrushchev gave a report, he said to instruct the “Communist” magazine to blow their ashes into the sky. They put Shaumyan in the background because Shaumyan is Armenian, they want their hero to be one of them.
It is important to approach each historical figure within the context of his time. Narimanov is a contradictory personality. Any amount of evidence can be given for or against it. But after all, before becoming a politician, Narimanov is an educator who is devoted to the culture and literature of Azerbaijan, a part of the country’s political history. If the discussion revolved around the installation of a new statue to him, of course, it would be possible to oppose it. But it would not be right to dismantle a monument erected 50 years ago. I understand that I will be criticized and attacked for this opinion. However, I think it is more difficult to stay silent in the face of this criticism (insults are also possible) and attacks, avoiding the truth.
Why are we afraid of statues? Having lived under the conditions of a regime that was a hundred times dirtier than the regime led by Narimanov a hundred years ago (certainly not for everyone), how “fair” is it, to put it mildly, to submit to it and demand the demolition of Narimanov’s monument? Did Narimanov make mistakes? It happened! His letters to Nasib bey Usubbeyov and Alimardan bey Tochibashi were wrong, the idea that “Azerbaijan’s eternal happiness is connected with Russia” and his statement about Nakhchivan and Zangezur were also wrong. But it is not correct to put the matter in such a way that without Narimanov, Sovietization would not have happened. Sovietization was not about individuals. Like the collapse of Russia, its reconstruction was a global process.
According to me, the most objective and interesting image of Narimanov in historical literature was created by the German historian Jörg Baberovsky in the book “The enemy is everywhere”. He conducted extensive research in the Moscow archives, especially in fund 588 of the Russian State Socio-Political History Archive, where Narimanov’s documents are kept, and was able to create a memorable historical image of Professor Baberovsky and Narimanov, his triumph and tragedy. Baberovski writes that just as Nariman Narimanov sent Anastas Mikoyan away from Baku in September 1920, he forced Sarkis to sit in a closed carriage and expel him from Baku. (See: Jorg Baberovski. Враг есть везде. Stalinizm на Кавказе. Moscow, 2010, p. 273).
Nariman Narimanov instructed Behbud Shakhtakhtinsky, whom he sent as a special representative to Moscow, that it was necessary to carry out work there in order to cut off the foot of the Armenian communists, “who have one foot in Armenia and one foot in Azerbaijan”, from Baku, and he also instructed him to convey to Lenin that for 5-6 dashnaks, he should break relations with Turkey. not possible.
By the way, Moscow’s games and intrigues cost Narimanov dearly. All of his comrades-in-arms, with minor exceptions, sold him. Orjonikidze was at the head of this work. Baberovski writes: “emissaries of the center… managed to politically neutralize Narimanov’s comrades-in-arms.” Secret threats and political promises made it possible to turn his friends into enemies.” In 1923, when Narimanov’s letter “On the history of our revolution in the distant regions” to the Central Committee was discussed in the Party Control Committee headed by Yemelyan Yaroslavsky, Narimanov was accused of collusion. Even at the meeting, when Narimanov reminded Ruhulla Akhundov’s work of the past, Akhundov said that “it is better to be a communist and a work of the past, than to be an intellectual like Narimanov.” Mirza Davud Huseynov noted at the meeting of the commission that “while Rasulzadeh, who gathered our counter-revolutionaries and published a book against us, was conducting a rabid campaign against us, Narimanov is also expanding his rabid campaign against us. I, of course, do not think that Narimanov has a relationship with Rasulzadeh. He repeats Rasulzade’s evidence word for word.” By the way, before this letter was sent to the MK, when Mirsaid Sultan-Galiyev was arrested, he came out of his house during the search. And a presentation was prepared for the arrest of Narimanov. It is interesting that the presentation was signed by all members of the Politburo except Stalin.
The materials collected by the Yaroslavsky commission against him in Baku and Moscow were more like investigative material than party research. At the meetings organized by the commission against him in the labor collectives, some of the Muslim communists spoke against him and said: “Narimanov told us that you have gone after the Armenians, you have forgotten 1918.” There are many such examples. I only remembered the episodes.
The famous Azerbaijani scholar and American historian Audrey Altstadt also created an interesting image of Narimanov in the book “The Politics of Culture in Soviet Azerbaijan, 1920-1940” (Audrey L. Altstadt. The Politics of Culture in Soviet Azerbaijan, 1920-40). Mrs. Audrey once said that I know that some of my friends in Azerbaijan will be offended by me because of my attitude towards Narimanov, but I cannot betray Narimanov because of this resentment.
In order to return to Baku, Narimanov obtained a fake medical certificate for his one-year-old son, pretending that he did not like the air of Moscow. To defend his return to Baku, he wrote to Stalin: “Very respected comrade Stalin! I am asking you to defend my application before the Politburo, as my child’s health forces me to take such a step. I think that my 30 years of literary and public activity and the responsible positions I held for 8 years at the direction of the party give me the right to address such a request to the Political Bureau of our party. By submitting a medical certificate, I ask the Political Bureau to allow me to live in Baku. If my position as the chairman of the USSR MIC prevents this, please release me from my position.”
When my book “Sovietization of Azerbaijan: The South Caucasus in the Triangle of Russia, Turkey and Iran, 1920-1922” was prepared for publication at the Utah University Publishing House, the head of the editorial board of the publishing house Dr. John Alley (John Alley) and editor Kathy Lewis (Kathy Lewis) fell under Narimanov’s charm in the full sense of the word. He suggested to me that although the book chronologically covers the years 1920-1922, it is necessary to bring Narimanov’s activity to 1925 – until his death. Dr. Alley wrote, I feel sorry for his fate “Narimanov’s power and influence is a turning point in the history of your country, even if it goes beyond the chronology, it should be brought back to 1925.” Of course I did. I wrote these facts to ponder. With his mistakes, triumphs and tragedies, Narimanov is a part of the history, culture, and literature of this country, and blowing up his statue means blowing up a part of the history, culture, and education of this country.