Historians and public figures assessed the results of the rehabilitation of the Karachays.

The Karachay youth commemorates the anniversary of the deportation and knows the stories of their families, believes public figure Kady Khalkechev. Journalist Ilyas Bogatyrev believes that for young people, the date becomes a ritual. The consequences of the deportation of the Karachays remain palpable, noted historian Nikita Sokolov.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot", Karachay activists have repeatedly stated that the rehabilitation of the people is incomplete, pointing to insufficient compensation for lost property. In particular, on May 3, activists pointed out that the consequences of the deportation continue to affect the situation of the people, and the measures for rehabilitation provided by law have not been fully implemented. On October 18, they called to preserve the memory of the fighters for the rights of victims of political repression.

In Karachay-Cherkessia, the 83rd anniversary of the deportation of the Karachays was commemorated on November 2. Mourning rallies took place, in particular, at the memorial complex for the victims of deportation in Karachayevsk and at the monument to the victims of political repression in the stanitsa of Pregradnaya.

Activists debated the interest of youth in the history of deportation

Public figure Kady Khalkechev told a correspondent of “Caucasian Knot” that the youth remembers the mournful date and attends mourning events. “The day turned out to be sunny, thank God. But eyewitnesses of the deportation say that that day was slushy and cold. The weather itself, they say, was crying,” he said.

He noted that the republic's leadership paid close attention to the anniversary this time. “In principle, both the leadership and officials worked, in my opinion, normally. People wishing to come from the districts were provided with buses, arriving together with their district administration heads. Representatives of all peoples of Karachay-Cherkessia were present, as well as delegations from other regions,” Khalkechev said.

He acknowledges that today there is a noticeable trend to silence facts about repressions, particularly Stalin's role in the deportation.

“Currently, at least among the local leadership, this is not the case; on November 2, things were named by their names, and the head of the republic delivered a lengthy, substantive speech. There were other speeches; no one intended to silence this. But as for this character (Stalin), at the last congress of communists, Zyuganov's report suggested revising the decision of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. That is, the recognized criminal actions of Stalin, including the deportations of peoples, are being questioned. But besides this, there have already been other documents in new Russia, starting from the declaration of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the law on political repressions to the law on repressed peoples. All the accents are placed there. Therefore, the CPRF did not receive special support in Karachay-Cherkessia,” Khalkechev explained.

Journalist Ilyas Bogatyrev comes from a family of Karachays deported in 1943. According to him, public opinion regarding political repressions is unstable.

“Recently, it has been actively transforming, and attitudes toward Stalin are changing. The deportation is becoming a distant past, a tragedy with which the current generation has no living connection, as those who could tell about it are leaving this life,” Bogatyrev stated.

In his opinion, new research on the topic of deportation is not being published. “There are no attempts to rethink the significance of this event and to present the history of it in a new way. The history told by witnesses is one thing; the narrative of history from the mouths of those who heard it is quite another. Those who could tell it are almost gone, and those who retell it do so, firstly, in their own way; secondly, retelling is always devoid of feeling. There were works, in particular, I would note the 'Book of Memory' by journalist and poet Fatima Bayramukova, written based on the memories she collected directly from those who experienced the tragedy. There are incredible stories there. But this is from the late 1990s. The 'Book of Memory' was published in Karachay and translated into Russian,” Bogatyrev said.

He believes that for the youth, the date of deportation is often formalized. “Now there are fewer and fewer young people who know the details. This event is turning into a one-day ritual that is somehow connected to the history of the people to whom they belong. This has unfortunately become nothing more than a ritual. For it to become something more, direct work with the youth is needed. But now there is not a single authoritative representative of the people who could help rethink, reinterpret this history and understand the meaning of this tragedy in the history of the people. Who could express such a position: do not trample on the past, move forward. If you have some burden, reformat it for energetic movement forward,” Bogatyrev said.

The issue of lost property and material compensation remains relevant today, Khalkechev is convinced. “We lost homes, property accumulated over many decades. And homes twice. Because they were built in places of exile, and then had to leave them. Upon return, interest-free loans were given for building houses. But in compensating for other property, they were dealt with in some pennies. Of course, the people are still dissatisfied about this,” he pointed out.

Bogatyrev believes that the issue of material compensation has already lost its relevance. “In the 1990s, this issue was raised, funds were allocated for rehabilitation and compensation. But, of course, all this dissipated from top to bottom. And now there is almost no surviving generation left,” he noted.

The first deported people of the North Caucasus

Most historians today agree that the collaboration of individual groups cannot justify the deportation of an entire people. The application of collective responsibility to the Karachays is considered one of the most severe injustices of Stalin's national policy, historian Nikita Sokolov told "Caucasian Knot".

“Among the Karachays, there were people who collaborated with the German occupation authorities; such cases indeed occurred during the German occupation of Karachay in 1942-1943. However, modern historical science considers the conclusion of the guilt of the entire people to be untenable. Research shows that collaboration was characteristic of many regions of the USSR and many nationalities, not just the peoples of the North Caucasus,” he said.

At the same time, thousands of Karachays fought in the Red Army, the historian noted. According to him, “the Soviet authorities, justifying the deportation, practically ignored this fact.”

“According to research data, the number of Karachays who served in the Red Army far exceeded the number of those who could be classified as collaborators. Therefore, today the prevailing conclusion is that accusations of cooperation by part of the population with the occupiers were used as a political justification for the collective punishment of the entire people,” Sokolov explained.

From the perspective of the Stalinist regime, entire peoples were viewed as potentially unreliable communities, he noted. “During the war years, the authorities increasingly resorted not to individual responsibility but to ethnic deportations. The Karachays became the first of the peoples of the North Caucasus subjected to complete deportation, and then the same practice was extended to the Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, and other peoples,” Sokolov said.

He pointed out that many Karachays continued to fight, not knowing that their families were already in exile. “After demobilization, a significant part of the front-line soldiers was sent not home but to special settlements with their families. Even combat awards and front-line merits did not exempt them from the special settler regime. In fact, the state treated them ambiguously: on the one hand, they were recognized as war veterans, on the other hand, they remained part of the deported people and were restricted in freedom of movement and rights until the mid-1950s. Only after the decisions of the 20th Congress of the CPSU did rehabilitation begin, and in 1957, the Karachays were allowed to return to their homeland,” Sokolov emphasized.

According to Sokolov, many consequences of the deportation have been overcome. “The people have preserved themselves numerically and culturally; the status of Karachay-Cherkessia has been restored; schools, literature, and national culture have been revived; scientific research, museums, and memorial practices of memory have emerged; in 1991, the deportation was officially recognized as illegal, and the people were rehabilitated,” he said.

At the same time, a number of consequences of the exile are still clearly felt today. “Firstly, these are demographic losses. Mortality on the way and in the first years of exile was very high, and these losses are irreparable. Secondly, these are breaks in historical memory and continuity. Many kinship ties, traditions of farming, and local knowledge about places of residence were lost. Thirdly, there is a language problem. Although the Karachay language has survived, the deportation accelerated the processes of assimilation and reduced the spheres of its use. Fourthly, this is a trauma of collective memory. For many Karachays, the deportation remains a central event in the national history of the 20th century, defining their attitude toward the past and the state. Researchers consider this memory to be a crucial element of modern Karachay identity,” Sokolov concluded.