Tajiks Worldwide Community: Tajiks of Uzbekistan - Tajiks Worldwide Community

Jump to content

Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox

Parsistani Icon : (04 January 2016 - 10:02 PM) Someone here?
parwana Icon : (30 April 2014 - 05:21 PM) Posted Image
Parsistani Icon : (22 July 2013 - 04:02 AM) good morning :)
Gul agha Icon : (03 May 2013 - 04:29 PM) Sohrab, Tajikam doesn't only consist of a forum. We have two major sections in this website. One is in Persian which is updated frequently and the other is in Persian (Cyrillic). Additionally, the English page is still running and has a vast amount of information on Tajiks and Persians.
Gul agha Icon : (03 May 2013 - 04:27 PM) http://www.facebook.com/Tajikamsite
Sohrab Icon : (01 May 2013 - 06:31 AM) Tajikam on facebook?
SHA DOKHT Icon : (01 May 2013 - 12:12 AM) Like our page on Facebook: https://www.facebook...541604162529143
Sohrab Icon : (29 March 2013 - 08:31 AM) H again, I thought the site would be closed, but it's still running.
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 10:17 AM) Tajikistan was inhabited by the races of Cyrus the great (Sultan skindar Zulqarnain). The achmaniend dynasty ruled the entire region for several thousnd years.Cyrus the great's son cymbasis(Combchia)with forces migrated to Balkh ancient Bactaria or Bakhtar. Sultan Sumus the desecndant of Cyrus the great faught war against Alaxander of Macdonia in Bakhtar current tajikistan.
this ruling class was inhabited in the areas, like Balkh,fargana,alai,Tajikistan,badakhshan,Kabul,Takhar,Tashkorogan,Khutan,kashkar,Swat,Kashmir,Peshawar, hashtnager,Dir, Bajour,Gilgit,for serveral thaousand years.
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 10:16 AM) hellow
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 10:00 AM) Tajikistan was inhabited by the races of Cyrus the great (Sultan skindar Zulqarnain). The achmaniend dynasty ruled the entire region for several thousnd years.Cyrus the great's son cymbasis(Combchia)with forces migrated to Balkh ancient Bactaria or Bakhtar. Sultan Sumus the desecndant of Cyrus the great faught war against Alaxander of Macdonia in Bakhtar current tajikistan.
this ruling class was inhabited in the areas, like Balkh,fargana,alai,Tajikistan,badakhshan,Kabul,Takhar,Tashkorogan,Khutan,kashkar,Swat,Kashmir,Peshawar, hashtnager,Dir, Bajour,Gilgit,for serveral thaousand years.
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 09:46 AM) hellow
Gabaro_glt Icon : (25 March 2013 - 10:48 AM) Asssssssssalam o Alaikum
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:22 AM) I would like to here something from a tajik brother/sister living in Tajikstan
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:20 AM) I have traced my ancestors migrated from Panj and Balkh ancient
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:19 AM) I am desendant of Sultan behram Gabari Tajik living in GilGit pakistan
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:17 AM) Salam to all brothers
Parsistani Icon : (01 June 2012 - 10:48 AM) we are on facebook. Tajikam on facebook
Parsistani Icon : (01 June 2012 - 10:47 AM) salam guys.
Azim-khan Icon : (19 May 2012 - 11:19 AM) salom bachaho )
Resize Shouts Area

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Tajiks of Uzbekistan Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Afrasiab Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
472
Joined:
29-October 07

Posted 21 July 2008 - 05:45 AM

??? ? ??? ??? ? ??? ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...dentity11.shtml
0

#2 User is offline   Sohrab Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,234
Joined:
10-October 07

Posted 21 July 2008 - 07:02 AM

Thanks afrasiab. We appreciate if you guys provide more information about Tajikis of uzbekistan.
0

#3 User is offline   Ordibehesht Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
40
Joined:
14-July 08

Posted 21 July 2008 - 10:55 AM

This is a pretty interesting article on the subject of Tajiks and Uzbeks:

Quote

Tajik-Uzbek RelationsDivergent national historiographies threaten to aggravate tensionsThursday 17 May 2007, by Igor TORBAKOV Tajik-Uzbek relations are marked by increasing rancour. The latest evidence of tension is Uzbekistans decision to cut natural gas supplies in early June because of Dushanbes debt of about $3.5 million. In recent months the two countries have also quarrelled over Tashkents mining of the common border in an effort to prevent Islamic militants from infiltrating Uzbekistan from Tajikistan.Another potential source of hostility is connected to divergent national historiographies. Efforts by both countries to forge distinct identities in the post-Soviet era are a source of considerable friction between peoples who have co-existed relatively peacefully in the same region for centuries.Prior to the 19th-century Russian invasion of Central Asia, notions of ethnicity and nationality were largely alien to the peoples of the region. It was only after the 1917 Bolshevik revolution that large-scale social engineering, popularly known under the label of national delimitation (natsionalnoe razmezhevaniye) occurred in 1924-1925.Large chunks of Central Asian territory were turned into sovereign republics and given the names of titular nationalities. This is how contemporary Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan came into being. However, during the Soviet era, distinct national identities could not develop properly due to the specific policies pursued by Moscow, featuring stringent centralized control.In the wake of the Soviet collapse, the elites of the newly independent Central Asian states utilized historical scholarship to help forge distinct national identities. The creation (or re-creation) of useable past became a preoccupation for local intellectuals, striving to service the political needs of the new nations leaders. This effort, however, contributed to the aggravation of the already uneasy relationship between some peoples in the region, in particular between Tajiks and Uzbeks.Uzbeks and Tajiks have much more in common in terms of shared history and culture than Kyrgyz and Turkmen do with them, or with each other. The first cities in Central Asia were undoubtedly Persian. Yet by the 14th century, Turkic culture, too, had firmly established itself in the region. The result of the interplay of cross-cultural currents was a unique Turkic-Persian sedentary civilization where peoples, languages, traditions, and symbols were to the great extent intermixed. The populations of the oasis towns in the Bukhara emirate and the khanates of Khiva and Kokand were mixed and almost totally bilingual. This sedentary Tajik-Uzbek population would invariably identify themselves first through religion, and then through region and social position. The settled peoples of Central Asia regard themselves first as Muslims and then as inhabitants of any given town or region; ethnic concepts having virtually no significance in their eyes, noted Vasiliy Barthold, Russias leading specialist in Oriental studies in as late as 1927.The Soviet experiment in the socialist nation-building launched the process of destruction of pre-modern Tajik-Uzbek cultural coexistence. Today, the emergence of the independent states of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan has inexorably turned the two historically intertwined peoples into regional rivals. The raison detat and the political desires of local elites keen to legitimize their power have unequivocally dictated the construction of two separate political identities. To facilitate this process the writing of two distinct national histories has become a must.For a variety of reasons the designers of the Soviet national delimitation in Central Asia discriminated against the Tajiks, having deprived the newly formed republic of Tajikistan of the two most important centres of Tajik urban culture Bukhara and Samarkand which were awarded to Uzbekistan. In the words of William Beeman, professor of anthropology at Brown University: The Tajik situation in some ways resembles that of post-colonial Africa. Tajiks have been given an impossible piece of territory with disparate population and have been forced to make a nation out of it.In contrast, Uzbekistan, due to Bolshevik planners generosity, has emerged as the most powerful state in Central Asia, with the richest cultural-historical background. Given the uneven starting conditions, it is not surprising that Uzbek and Tajik intellectuals resort to the different historiographic strategies. It is also noteworthy that the historians of both nations draw heavily on the scholarly traditions of the previous, Soviet, generation of local scholars.In constructing their own ethnic historical narrative, the present-day Uzbek intellectuals make use of the history of the territory paradigm, which was elaborated by the historians of Soviet Uzbekistan. This approach implies that the cultural heritage of a certain ethnos comprises all historical names, persons and artefacts pertaining to the territory that the given ethnos currently inhabits. This strategy makes it possible to depict an uninterrupted continuum of Uzbek history from the ancient times to the present. Thus, the written texts and the monuments of material culture of the ancient Khorezm [1] and those located in the lands between Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers are said to be produced by the Uzbek genius, despite the fact that the Uzbeks started conquering these territories only in the end of the fifteenth century. No wonder that the ruthless Turkic (although not Uzbek) ruler of the fourteenth century, Amir Timur (Tamerlane [2]), has become the principal historical hero of the Uzbek master narrative. Every Uzbek city has now a street named after him, there is a huge Timur museum in the centre of Uzbek capital, and his formidable statues adorn the public parks in Samarkand (Timurs capital) and Tashkent.In the same vein, contemporary Uzbekistan an artificial creature created by the Bolsheviks is being portrayed as nothing other than essentially a Greater Bukhara. Again, the history of the territory approach comes in quite handy. A Samarkand part of Russian/Soviet Turkestan, together with the Tashkent region and the larger chunk of the Ferghana Valley plus most of the historical Bukhara emirate and the pieces of Khiva did indeed make up a new state formation.Tajik scholars, having to deal with the rump of their historical territory, cannot rely on a similar approach. Their strategy says Rustam Shukurov, a specialist in Tajik historiography at the Moscow University was to write the history of Tajiks viewed as the history of living ethnos with fluctuating, historically conditioned borders. The foundation of this analytical paradigm was laid down by Bobojon Ghafurov, the first secretary of Tajik communist party in the 1940s-1950s and, later, director of the Moscow-based Institute of Oriental Studies.According to Ghafurov, the geography of Tajik history by no means corresponds with the geographical borders of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic. To be sure, this was an open challenge, which caused a veritable barrage of criticism from the champions of history of the territory approach. Ghafurovs intellectual influence can be traced, too, in the decision of the Tajik government to celebrate in 1999 the 1,100th anniversary of the Samanid dynasty. The Samanid empire (whose principal city was, by the way, Bukhara, now in Uzbekistan) existed for about 200 years in the 9th and 10th centuries, and, arguably, played a crucial role in the development of the Persian culture. Being aware of the dearth of statist elements in Tajik past, the authorities in Dushanbe have willingly embraced the Samanids as a cultural symbol of Tajik civilization.At the same time, Tajik academician M. Shakuri has recently attempted to combine influential self-identification concepts to reconceptualize the idea of Great Khorasan as a cultural-geographical region. Great Khorasan is a territory that comprises present-day Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. In the Persian-speaking world Khorasan was traditionally regarded as the cradle of Iranian culture. In the opinion of Moscow historian Shukurov, the significance of the Khorasan concept is twofold. Firstly, the Tajik historical narrative again spreads far beyond Tajikistans current borders, thus confirming its opposition to the history of the territory strategies. Secondly, argues Shukurov, the Soviet term Tajik is, in fact, being replaced by its Khorasan equivalent a term sanctified by tradition and, for any representative of the neo-Persian civilization, rich in cultural and historic symbolism.Current Uzbek and Tajik historiographies are on a collision course. The Uzbek application of the history of the territory approach has, as its indirect political implication, placed pressure on the Tajik minority in Samarkand and Bukhara to give up its ethnic identity, and register as Uzbek. Meanwhile, the Tajik vision of the national past as the history of living ethnos, no matter what its current state borders are, appears to imply that Tajiks are, so far, unprepared to reconcile themselves with the loss of the major centres of the ancient Tajik-Persian civilization.Footnotes[1] ??? ???.[2] ??? ?? ??? .http://www.fravahr.o....php?article347

0

#4 User is offline   Sohrab Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,234
Joined:
10-October 07

Posted 21 July 2008 - 10:57 AM

The uzbek Gov changed the Farsi Paper of Bukharai Sharif from persian to Uzbek a few years ago. I think the Bukharis are living in even worse condition compare to the samarqandis.
0

#5 User is offline   Ordibehesht Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
40
Joined:
14-July 08

Posted 22 July 2008 - 06:02 PM

Roughly how many Tajiks make up the population of Uzbekistan? Any idea?? And what parts of Uzbekistan are Tajiks concentrated in, or are they mainly spread-out across the whole country?
0

#6 User is offline   Kambiz Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
720
Joined:
13-January 08

Posted 24 July 2008 - 11:43 AM

[QUOTE=Ordibehesht;11980]Roughly how many Tajiks make up the population of Uzbekistan? Any idea?? And what parts of Uzbekistan are Tajiks concentrated in, or are they mainly spread-out across the whole country?[/QUOTE]

Unofficially, around 42% (according to Tajik organisations within Uzbekistan).

Officially, 5%.

They are concentrated mainly in Bukhara, Samarqand, Surkhandarya and tashkent provinces.
0

#7 User is offline   TajMahal Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
131
Joined:
06-November 07

Posted 25 July 2008 - 07:51 PM

[QUOTE=Ordibehesht;11980]Roughly how many Tajiks make up the population of Uzbekistan? Any idea?? And what parts of Uzbekistan are Tajiks concentrated in, or are they mainly spread-out across the whole country?[/QUOTE]

Unofficially 45% and more officially 5%. The govnment claim there is no Tajik more in Uzbekistan.

In Uzbekistan the T?jik are the largest part of the population of the ancient cities of Bukhara and Samarqand, and are found in large numbers in the Surxondaryo Province in the south and along Uzbekistan's eastern border with Tajikistan.

Official statistics in Uzbekistan state that the Tajik community comprises 5% of the nation's total population.[3] However, these numbers do not include ethnic Tajiks, who for a variety of reasons, declare themselves to be ethnic Uzbeks.[28] During the Soviet 'Uzbekization' supervised by Sharof Rashidov, the head of the Uzbek Communist Party, Tajiks had to choose either stay in Uzbekistan and get registered as Uzbek in their passports or leave the republic for a less developed agricultural mountainous Tajikistan. Tajiks may make up closer to 15 to 45 percent of Uzbekistan's population.[4][5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajiks
0

#8 User is offline   Sohrab Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,234
Joined:
10-October 07

Posted 26 July 2008 - 11:55 AM

[QUOTE=Kambiz;12167]Unofficially, around 42% (according to Tajik organisations within Uzbekistan).

Officially, 5%.

They are concentrated mainly in Bukhara, Samarqand, Surkhandarya and tashkent provinces.[/QUOTE]

Kambiz jan, if they are really 42%, then they are strong enough to beat the racism of uzbekistan gov, while we see almost no activity from them.
0

#9 User is offline   Ordibehesht Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
40
Joined:
14-July 08

Posted 28 July 2008 - 06:42 PM

That is a huge difference between official and unofficial estimates. If its true that the unofficial (and by implication correct) figure for Tajiks in Uzbekistan is little over 40% of the population but the government puts them at only 5% then this has to be one of the biggest cultural genocides going on in the World today.
0

#10 User is offline   Nader Shah Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
1,155
Joined:
13-October 07

Posted 29 July 2008 - 04:18 AM

Die Hard Pan Turkists say 51% (notice the extra 1 above 50) of Iranians are Azeris. The moderate ones say 35%. And official estimates are 20-25%. So, everyone is guilty of exaggerating their own numbers. Without being as stupid as Pan Turkists, and inflating numbers beyond reason, what is the real percentage of Tajiks in Uzbekistan ? And, even if you come up with that number, does it really matter since they are pro-Uzbek ?? And in Iran it does not matter either if theu are 20% or 60%, most of them do not wish to separate. So, let's find out the truth and not be dumbasses like the delusional Pan-Turkists. What is the truth about Tajiks in Uzbekistan, not just the numbers but also the allegiance ? And also, how would we feel in Iran if people were trying to promote Azeri separatism as Tajiks try to promote Tajik separatism in Uzbekistan ? I am just setting aside all emotions and personal feelings for a moment, and being the devil's advocate. Azerbaijan republic's prpaganda against Iran sounds a lot like Tajikistan's propaganda against Uzbekistan - and may I be cursed for saying this. Any answers to make me wrong ? Please make me wrong with good arguments :)
[QUOTE=Ordibehesht;12458]That is a huge difference between official and unofficial estimates. If its true that the unofficial (and by implication correct) figure for Tajiks in Uzbekistan is little over 40% of the population but the government puts them at only 5% then this has to be one of the biggest cultural genocides going on in the World today.[/QUOTE]
0

#11 User is offline   Sohrab Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,234
Joined:
10-October 07

Posted 29 July 2008 - 07:04 AM

[QUOTE=Nader Shah;12485] And, even if you come up with that number, does it really matter since they are pro-Uzbek ?? [/QUOTE]

Exactly!!!!!!! Wishful thinking takes us no where.
0

#12 User is offline   arya-zadah Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
46
Joined:
13-July 07

Posted 29 July 2008 - 07:23 AM

i remember how at first time in my life i met bukharans, in a russian university, long time ago. i had just noticed guys speaking Persian and asked them whether they were from Tajikistan. "No, we are from Uzbekistan," they told me emotionlessly. To my question whether they were tajiks they told me "No, we are uzbeks indeed but speak tajiki". they believed that they were forced farsi langauage by Iran when it occupied "true uzbek city Bukhara" in 16th century. They spoke persian but referred to themselves as uzbeks like "Mo uzbako kallapushamoya da saramo monda afqot mekhurem, uruso boshen sari kuch qati" :) . i met them afterward many times and we had become friends. it took years before one of them eventually has become "tajik", even 'tajik patriot' and the rest of them started only to affiliate themselves with tajiks. I have been in Bukhara in their houses - majority of them don't care of their identity. absolute majority of Sunni Persian-speaking bukharans consider themselves as uzbeks. However, in local term, the dwellers of city consider themselves as "Bukhoroi" and refer to turkic-speaking population of some surrounding villages as "uzbak". the term "tajik" for bukharans means 'people from mountains". that's all.
0

#13 User is offline   Nader Shah Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
1,155
Joined:
13-October 07

Posted 29 July 2008 - 07:29 AM

:( That is sad :( I hoped you would prove me wrong :confused:
But thanks for your personal testimony.
Do you think they are really Uzbeks ?
[QUOTE=arya-zadah;12494]i remember how at first time in my life i met bukharans, in a russian university, long time ago. i had just noticed guys speaking Persian and asked them whether they were from Tajikistan. "No, we are from Uzbekistan," they told me emotionlessly. To my question whether they were tajiks they told me "No, we are uzbeks indeed but speak tajiki". they believed that they were forced farsi langauage by Iran when it occupied "true uzbek city Bukhara" in 16th century. They spoke persian but referred to themselves as uzbeks like "Mo uzbako kallapushamoya da saramo monda afqot mekhurem, uruso boshen sari kuch qati" :) . i met them afterward many times and we had become friends. it took years before one of them eventually has become "tajik", even 'tajik patriot' and the rest of them started only to affiliate themselves with tajiks. I have been in Bukhara in their houses - majority of them don't care of their identity. absolute majority of Sunni Persian-speaking bukharans consider themselves as uzbeks. However, in local term, the dwellers of city consider themselves as "Bukhoroi" and refer to turkic-speaking population of some surrounding villages as "uzbak". the term "tajik" for bukharans means 'people from mountains". that's all.[/QUOTE]
0

#14 User is offline   Nader Shah Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
1,155
Joined:
13-October 07

Posted 29 July 2008 - 07:32 AM

Kambiz jan, what is your take ?
I was just being the devil's advocate :o
It is strange how nationalism can lead to contradictions
But are "tajiks" of Uzbekistan really tajiks or not ?
I don't know - i am an ignorant iranian ...
0

#15 User is offline   Sohrab Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,234
Joined:
10-October 07

Posted 29 July 2008 - 07:34 AM

[QUOTE=arya-zadah;12494]i remember how at first time in my life i met bukharans, in a russian university, long time ago. i had just noticed guys speaking Persian and asked them whether they were from Tajikistan. "No, we are from Uzbekistan," they told me emotionlessly. To my question whether they were tajiks they told me "No, we are uzbeks indeed but speak tajiki". they believed that they were forced farsi langauage by Iran when it occupied "true uzbek city Bukhara" in 16th century. They spoke persian but referred to themselves as uzbeks like "Mo uzbako kallapushamoya da saramo monda afqot mekhurem, uruso boshen sari kuch qati" :) . i met them afterward many times and we had become friends. it took years before one of them eventually has become "tajik", even 'tajik patriot' and the rest of them started only to affiliate themselves with tajiks. I have been in Bukhara in their houses - majority of them don't care of their identity. absolute majority of Sunni Persian-speaking bukharans consider themselves as uzbeks. However, in local term, the dwellers of city consider themselves as "Bukhoroi" and refer to turkic-speaking population of some surrounding villages as "uzbak". the term "tajik" for bukharans means 'people from mountains". that's all.[/QUOTE]

This is the only reason why farsi is badly suffering in uzbekistan. you cant force to think they are not uzbek. by the way, who has injected them with this idea?
0

#16 User is offline   Sohrab Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,234
Joined:
10-October 07

Posted 29 July 2008 - 07:38 AM

[QUOTE=arya-zadah;12494]i remember how at first time in my life i met bukharans, in a russian university, long time ago. i had just noticed guys speaking Persian and asked them whether they were from Tajikistan. "No, we are from Uzbekistan," they told me emotionlessly. To my question whether they were tajiks they told me "No, we are uzbeks indeed but speak tajiki". they believed that they were forced farsi langauage by Iran when it occupied "true uzbek city Bukhara" in 16th century. They spoke persian but referred to themselves as uzbeks like "Mo uzbako kallapushamoya da saramo monda afqot mekhurem, uruso boshen sari kuch qati" :) . i met them afterward many times and we had become friends. it took years before one of them eventually has become "tajik", even 'tajik patriot' and the rest of them started only to affiliate themselves with tajiks. I have been in Bukhara in their houses - majority of them don't care of their identity. absolute majority of Sunni Persian-speaking bukharans consider themselves as uzbeks. However, in local term, the dwellers of city consider themselves as "Bukhoroi" and refer to turkic-speaking population of some surrounding villages as "uzbak". the term "tajik" for bukharans means 'people from mountains". that's all.[/QUOTE]

And according to this information, i strongly reject the idea that the uzbek goverment is tempering with the real number of tajiks there, as long as they call themselves uzbeks there is noting left for uzbek gov to do, job done by the people for the gov.
0

#17 User is offline   Ahhangar Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
316
Joined:
03-February 08

Posted 29 July 2008 - 11:28 AM

[QUOTE=arya-zadah;12494]i remember how at first time in my life i met bukharans, in a russian university, long time ago. i had just noticed guys speaking Persian and asked them whether they were from Tajikistan. "No, we are from Uzbekistan," they told me emotionlessly. To my question whether they were tajiks they told me "No, we are uzbeks indeed but speak tajiki". they believed that they were forced farsi langauage by Iran when it occupied "true uzbek city Bukhara" in 16th century. They spoke persian but referred to themselves as uzbeks like "Mo uzbako kallapushamoya da saramo monda afqot mekhurem, uruso boshen sari kuch qati" :) . i met them afterward many times and we had become friends. it took years before one of them eventually has become "tajik", even 'tajik patriot' and the rest of them started only to affiliate themselves with tajiks. I have been in Bukhara in their houses - majority of them don't care of their identity. absolute majority of Sunni Persian-speaking bukharans consider themselves as uzbeks. However, in local term, the dwellers of city consider themselves as "Bukhoroi" and refer to turkic-speaking population of some surrounding villages as "uzbak". the term "tajik" for bukharans means 'people from mountains". that's all.[/QUOTE]

Do you not think that the term 'Tajik' is itself quite unappealing due to it being a foreign term ? Maybe it is why most our people have preferred to stick to the geographical local name ? In Afghanistan it is the same - most people we would think of Tajiks would not call themselves Tajiks but would prefer their own geographically derived label - e.g. Panjshiri - Herati - Charikari - Darwazi - Gardezi - and so on. If they ever use another in conjunction with their geographical names - it is that we are 'Afghans'. This maybe the case in Uzbekistan where the 'Tajik' as we see them - prefer the term Bukhari to Uzbek and prefer the term 'Uzbek' to 'Tajik'

The issue now arises of what to do to get these people to identify with a pan identity that is of benefit to what we would recognize as our cause.

Technically - the term 'Pars' would be more correct to be applied to Persian speaking Iranics.

But how to promote our own genuine term 'Pars' and get it to appeal to more to our people than the other terms'?

By promoting the fact that the correct name of our language is Parsi - it could be derived that the speakers of this language are therefore PARS. Having said that, even if it is not derived and the connection not made - the people would be able to identify with more of each other with the idea that they are all 'Parsi' speakers, which is still better than thinking some are 'Tajiki' speakers - others 'Farsi' speakers - and another lot 'Dari' speakers.


So - it should be clear that the promotion of the correct name of our language as a first step is fundamental to the campaign of uniting our peoples.

Ahhangar
0

#18 User is offline   arya-zadah Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
46
Joined:
13-July 07

Posted 29 July 2008 - 01:32 PM

[QUOTE=Ahhangar;12510]Do you not think that the term 'Tajik' is itself quite unappealing due to it being a foreign term ? Maybe it is why most our people have preferred to stick to the geographical local name ? In Afghanistan it is the same - most people we would think of Tajiks would not call themselves Tajiks but would prefer their own geographically derived label - e.g. Panjshiri - Herati - Charikari - Darwazi - Gardezi - and so on. If they ever use another in conjunction with their geographical names - it is that we are 'Afghans'. This maybe the case in Uzbekistan where the 'Tajik' as we see them - prefer the term Bukhari to Uzbek and prefer the term 'Uzbek' to 'Tajik'

The issue now arises of what to do to get these people to identify with a pan identity that is of benefit to what we would recognize as our cause.

Technically - the term 'Pars' would be more correct to be applied to Persian speaking Iranics.

But how to promote our own genuine term 'Pars' and get it to appeal to more to our people than the other terms'?

By promoting the fact that the correct name of our language is Parsi - it could be derived that the speakers of this language are therefore PARS. Having said that, even if it is not derived and the connection not made - the people would be able to identify with more of each other with the idea that they are all 'Parsi' speakers, which is still better than thinking some are 'Tajiki' speakers - others 'Farsi' speakers - and another lot 'Dari' speakers.


So - it should be clear that the promotion of the correct name of our language as a first step is fundamental to the campaign of uniting our peoples.

Ahhangar[/QUOTE]

many thanks guys, Unity Jan, Ahangar Jan, Nader shah Jan,
i was amazed to read your very relevant responses.
i have really just started to realize by myself the essence of the problem.
from my observation, Bukhara and some other Persian areas in southern Uzbekistan, Sorkhan-Darya and Qashqa-Darya regions (Baysun region, Deh-naw reagion) stay differently from other Uzbekistani Persian areas. For example, Samarqand city is very proud Tajik city and people there are extremely proud of their Persian heritage. Namangan in Ferghana valley is the most Persian province of Uzbekistan statistically as officially more than 200,000 tajiks live in this province although in fact this province doesn't contain as much tajiks as Bukhara&Samarqand provinces. I think it is just because the tajiks who live in this province consider themselves "tajiks"... same case with tajiks in Ferghana valley, tajik groups who live in the mountainous region surrounding the capital of Uzbekiatan ( Tashkand), tajiks living in Jizzakh (Dizak), Chust city, the city of Termez... I think this diversity in self-awareness among Persians of Central Asia has something to do, first, with history, the state of Persian identity in Central Asia at the moment of Russian invasion, and secondly, with what have been done during 20-s century of soviet period with this group of population. i think it's well known now that by the end of 19-th century the Iranian/Persian population of Eastern Iran (Vara-Rud and Khorasan) had practically lost their Persian identity after having been ruled by turks (mostly) and pushtuns for almost millennium. What has happened then is here, Russians, invaded the region, and tried to understand who lived here. First, Russians invaded Hooqand (Kokand) khanate in Ferghana valley, northernmost piece of the land where Persianwas official language and huge number of indigenous Persians lived. this Persian population was under investigation and analysis by russians after they have taken over the territory along, with other turkic ethnic groups of the region (sarts, uygurs, karluks, uzbek tribes). Now some tajikistani inteelectuals belive that it was in fact russians who started officially to distinguish Persian population of the area as separate ethnic group that had been easily accepted by Persians themselves. Indeed Russians called this population "tajiks", a turkic term (Russians could know anything about the region only through their turkic allies - tatars, bashkirs, kazakhs) . At this time the most Persian country of the region - Bukhara emirate - was still independent from Russia, and the identity of the people was just "bukhari", not "tajiks" or "uzbeks". Even after final invasion of Amarat-e-Boxara by Russians and escape of the emir Amanollah Khan to Afghanistan, Russians still considered Bukharans as "bukharans" and they even created "Bukhara Soviet Socialistic republic" with "bukharan" identity... Further was the matter of Soviet politics, personal ambitions of certain persian-speaking figures of Bukhara...the Persian awareness was prohibited along with farsi language as the language of old feudalic regime, the turkic term "tajiki"
has been suggested for Iranian population as the self-designation term that wasn't acceptable for curtain group of Persians, especillay Bukharan Persians etc...
What we have now is the Persian population of Uzbekistan in term of identity live in 19th century still, with no adequate understanding of their biological, cultural and linguistic routes. The question is whether it is possible to preserve something that belong to the past - i don't think so. I believe the Persians of Uzbekistan eventually become sufficiently modernized and industrialized to understand who they are and where they from. But, it looks like they are going to return to their Persian home later than Persians of tajikistan and afghanistan.
0

#19 User is offline   Kambiz Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
720
Joined:
13-January 08

Posted 29 July 2008 - 01:55 PM

[QUOTE=Nader Shah;12496]Kambiz jan, what is your take ?
I was just being the devil's advocate :o
It is strange how nationalism can lead to contradictions
But are "tajiks" of Uzbekistan really tajiks or not ?
I don't know - i am an ignorant iranian ...[/QUOTE]

NS jan,

Of course they are not Uzbek. Those cities have been populated by Iranian people for ages. Have they evaporated? No. It's actually vice versa and most of Uzbeks are originally Soghdian.

Sadly though, the Uzbek propaganda machine is working well and most of them have been brain-washed, but not all of them. Apart from that, Karimov's repressive measures against tajiks in the early 1990s have scared them off. We need to talk to them as much as possible to give them heart and knowledge about their real background.

Cheers
0

#20 User is offline   TajMahal Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
131
Joined:
06-November 07

Posted 29 July 2008 - 02:19 PM

For 2 years ago i met a girl from Bukhara who have taken part in an educational exchange. When I asked her about her homeland and if she knows that shes a Tajik she told me that Tajiks like herself call to themself Uzbeks because they have the citizen of Uzbekistan. Wouldnt they call themself as Uzbeks the govnment would consider them as illigal immigrants from Tajikistan and would take their homes, lands and goods away and threat them with beatings and kidnappings as they did many times. But its not so that the Tajiks dont no their own origine and identity. In Uzbekistan they revolt against the uzbekization with literature and their language for decades. Because of this distinct doings Tajiks are considered as an Uzbek tribe (of course with the help of soviets). That means Uzbeks propagate that these Tajiks have Uzbek origine while unregistered Tajiks are considered as an own ethnos. Tajiks of ''Uzbek origine'' call themself Samarkandi, bukhari, Khokandi, Tarmezi while the rest use only Tajik
0

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users