Tata Ulan cracks the whip in this "innovative" Kyrgyz nationalist video promoting Muslim tradition.
Nate Schenkkan has a fascinating piece posted at EurasiaNet on Tata Ulan, whom he calls "one of Kyrgyzstan's most innovative – and provocative – performers."
I'll say. This fellow, dressed in the garb of the ancient epic hero Manas, reminiscent of a falconer, expresses a conservative -- even fundamentalist -- Muslim imperative to have the Westernized women of Kyrgyzstan take off their mini-skirts and makeup and clothe themselves more modestly and behave more traditionally in keeping with what are purported to be their ancient traditions.
Nate's the best writer at EurasiaNet because he actually reports -- he goes out and talks to people and gets all the texture and nuances and fascinating details that you could ask for.
But while he somewhat anticipates for us the harshness of the video to come by deploying words like "hector" and "provocative," nothing prepares us for the scenes of traditionally-clad man behind a podium, like a cross between a preacher and a Communist Party apparatchik, declaming loudly and fiercely, and holding up a book and at one point even cracking a whip.
Ouch. I'd like a second opinion about all this. Schenkkan interviews Bermet Imanalieva , editor of the culture website Limon.kg, his chief source for this story, but she is completely uncritical of (and rather enraptured by) this conservative singer, warbling that he is "unique" and "topical":
“Our country loves opposition, people who stand against something,” said Imanalieva. “Some may criticize him, but the common people understand and respect him.”
There is something to that love of the underdog in these parts, but I wonder if the take on the "common people" is entirely accurate.
Why couldn't a modern woman in a short skirt have been interviewed for this piece? Imanalieva strikes me as a fan, and rather uncritical of the genre Schenkkan describes here:
The dominant message in his songs, he says, is spiritual. An adherent of the Muslim revivalist movement Tablighi Jamaat, he has gone on seven proselytizing missions.
Based on his interpretation of Islam, Ulan takes positions many regard as reactionary and misogynistic. He is passionately in favor of headscarves for women, a highly sensitive issue in contemporary Kyrgyzstan. In the video for "Ne Kerek," Ulan holds up two female dolls, one wearing a hijab, the other a miniskirt and tank-top, and says: "One Kyrgyz girl guards the honor of the Kyrgyz / One Kyrgyz girl brings shame to our people."
In another early song, the Russian-language “Brother Muslims," he denounces “the pervert Europe” that “defends the rights of sexual minorities/increasing the mass of abnormal communities.”
Whew. How much of a following does this "absolutely original" fellow actually have? I would love to know. And is it that "many regard"...or "which in fact is..."? Why the reticence? Yes, yes, I realize we can never judge in EurasiaNet circles...
I've written about the schools of thought that tend to deny any problem with an upsurge in Islamic religious fervour and cultural conservatism in Central Asia, or discount any threat of terrorism that may be linked to extremist thought, in the name of "progressive" Western values.
Instead, in this sort of "enemy of my enemy is my friend," the "progressives" tend to work overtime to be sensitive, nuanced, ambivalent, balanced. The style is gingerly, but then at times lurches to frank admiration for the sheer exoticism and "otherness" of it all.
But... is this what urban professional women in Bishkek, or for that matter, peasant women in the provinces, really want in their lives? And if they do, are they willing to use sanctions and even force on those who don't?
I recall a Kyrgyz diplomat at the UN some years ago when Kyrgyzstan first became independent, who proudly pointed out to me his wife in a short skirt, and pointed to his own glass of wine at a reception -- he was proud that he had the freedom to be modern and Westernized, and yet also spoke of his country's traditions appreciatively as well. Countless times Kyrgyz women and their Western feminist interpreters (and this is why I want to ask about this) have told us that with Kyrgyzstan's nomadic past, women were more equal to men than in other parts of the world with other lifestyles, because they shared in the work. Be that as it may, competing traditions from neighbours and Soviet secularism are all at play here, and I don't know what the result is.
Ne Kerek, Tata Ulan's fire-and-brimstone song, has more than 20,000 viewers. Do they like what they hear? What's their feeling about it? (The comments in Russian, at least, all seem to be a nasty squabble about whether the Kyrgyz "stole" songs from the Uzbeks.)
Schenkkan describes Tata Ulan's elaborate pose of always appearing in his ancient mask, ostensibly so he won't become recognizable and praise won't go to his head. The loveable hectorer then admits that the mask shtick is a bit of a PR gimmick -- yet we wonder if maybe he's just insecure about his acne scars (which Schenkkan references).
The rather didactic purpose of a lot of the "costumes and colourful objects" pieces at EurasiaNet seems to be to guide us to "appreciation" of non-Western cultures and the traditions of a country where we have an American base (for a lot of people, now the word "Manas" is associated with the base, not the name of the epic hero). And all that's good as far as it goes.
But why can't something like this be debated? It's possible to appreciate the textured nuances *and* debate. After all, Ulan believers fervently in his own right to debate Western culture -- strenuously. Reading along about his past, I couldn't help thinking that the motivation for his particular brand of Kyrgyz nationalism is rooted in the fact that as a young child, Russian was his first language in this Sovietized country and he was also educated in Moscow at a theatrical institute. That background and that evident humiliation and sense of inferiority regarding one's own heritage no doubt impelled this particular hero to become more nationalist than thou as a result. Does everybody feel this way?
As for women's rights, the picture is decidedly mixed in Kyrgyzstan, although it is still much better than neighbouring Central Asian countries. Stories of bride kidnappings surface now and then. A PBS story quotes a man discussing his kidnapped bride calmly when queried by a reporter: "We're happy," he says. "Keep visiting and we'll be happier."
Another video documentary by the Brooklyn-based independent media company VICE features that same deliberate ambiguity about the practice of bride kidnapping that Schenkkan displays with this piece about this authoritarian bard/rap singer (and see the Facebook comments for more of that American liberal defensiveness). Schenkkan meets Ulan and describes him as "innovative" and speaks of his "insistence on addressing sensitive issues" rather than characterizing him in any way as a reactionary -- as he might if he were covering Rick Santorum or Rush Limbaugh. The attractive exoticism of the other!
Ever the careful journalist -- and he really is good -- Schenkkan refrains from judgement and cautiously frames his subject:
He is now a fierce advocate of the language. "If you grew up in the city and don't speak Kyrgyz, you're a myrk," he says in "Ne Kerek," inverting the insult native Bishkek residents use for non-Russian speakers who move to the city. It is statements like this that prompt accusations of nationalism.
Accusations? Or accurate descriptions?
A good journalist lets the reader decide for himself -- and I have. Nonetheless, I'd like to hear from Kyrgyz women before I accept this final statement from Nate:
For now, the question is whether Tata Ulan and those like him – pious and taking pride in Kyrgyz culture – will be able to find common ground with the rest of the country.
That sounds like "the rest of the country" may not be ready for Ulan, even if they admire dissidents of this sort (who aren't going to be tolerant of dissent if they get into power). The one million plus Uzbeks in the south probably aren't terribly thrilled with this particular manifestation of nationalism, although it may not be the worst.
I remember an Ingush woman with whom I used to work on documenting the terrible atrocities of the second Chechen war. There came a time when some of the Chechen rebels began to become more fundamentalist and began to go around demanding that women don headscarves and stay out of public places -- which had not been their custom.
"Well, now, isn't this a matter of culture?" I asked hesitantly, ever the good Western liberal.
"It's not culture. It's absence of culture," my friend said, capturing the coercion involved in this imposition of a code on conduct and dress on women.
People with cultures broken by Russian imperialist aggression in these countries -- imperialism that neither the Western left nor the elite national intelligentsia ever want to call out -- understandably reach for their own heritages.
I see nothing wrong with challenging their selectivity and coercion in doing so, and asking whether it is culture, or absence of culture.
