<< No. 43 : 31 December 1976 >>

[1]

Zviad Gamsakhurdia

Action Group for the Defence of Human Rights in Georgia,

a member of Amnesty International (August 1976):

‘In 1975 the New York publishing house Khronika Press put out the documentary booklet On Torture in Georgia, which I wrote and compiled. The reason I did not sign the text at the time was that, as I had made a handwritten record of the Tsirekidze-Usupyan trial, I did not want to be interrogated as a witness in the case of the prison officials (case 10669), as this would have prevented me from getting into the courtroom for the second trial, which was to take place in May 1976 (I would have been barred, as being a witness).

‘Now, when the trial is over, I have decided to sign the above-mentioned document. Therefore, I ask the Chronicle to publish an announcement stating that I, as the author and compiler, request that the text of the book On Torture in Georgia be published under my name if it is republished in any language.’

*

[2]

Viktor Rtskhiladze

historian, Action Group for the Defence of Human Rights in Georgia (14 October 1976)

‘The Chronicle of Current Events, No. 41 (ninth year of publication), reported on “The Meskhetians’ Struggle to return to Georgia”. The Chronicle calls the Meskhetians Turks (“Turks or Meskhetians”), and, with reference to M. Kostava’s historical report Turkish Meskhetians or Georgian Meskhetians, the Chronicle declares: “The Chronicle is not competent to solve this historical-ethnographic problem, but it is known to the Chronicle that many representatives of this nationality call themselves (at least when speaking in Russian) Turks, Turkish Meskhetians or Meskhetian Turks”.

‘On this subject we would state the following:

‘[1] When someone is “not competent” to solve some “problem” and if he does not believe “competent persons” and their statements, then it would be natural to turn to “competent” dictionaries and encyclopaedias, even the most elementary ones. We would have expected this from the Chronicle.

Then Rtskhiladze, quoting from encyclopaedias and other sources, gives a short but very detailed sketch of the Meskhetians’ history and their role in the formation of the Georgian nation.

‘[2] With regard to the Chronicle‘s statement that “many representatives of this nationality call themselves … Turks”, this should be investigated more carefully.

V. Rtskhiladze here gives evidence on the historical ‘Islamization’ of the Meskhetians and the use made of this phenomenon by the Tsarist, and later the Soviet, authorities to divide the Meskhetians from the rest of the Georgian nation. This was specially so after their forcible deportation to Central Asia in 1944. The tendency continued even when the exile was commuted and the majority of Meskhetians settled in Azerbaijan.

‘In this context those Meskhetians who are known to the Chronicle and who call themselves “Turkish Meskhetians” are in reality Moslem Georgians who, as a result of the criminal policy carried out towards them and of their religious “working-over”, mix up their nationality and their religion, as they are badly-educated, ignorant people and do not know their own true origins.

‘… The official version of Meskhetian history, which justifies their exile as a nation in 1944, proclaims that they were “Turks” or “Turkish agents” and inclined to be “pro-Turkish” in the Second World War. The Chronicle’s statement in defence of the “Turkish” story gives extra weight to the “rightness” of the official version and hinders their return to their homeland …

‘[3] The Chronicle contradicts itself when it sets out the demands of the “Turks” for permission “to begin sending their children en masse to Georgian boarding schools, to have 10-15 Meskhetian school-leavers accepted at Georgian institutes of higher education, to invite lecturers on Georgian culture and history to visit the districts where the Meskhetians live in exile, and to send for documentary films on Georgia.”

‘The Chronicle reports that “the Georgian intelligentsia invited representatives of the exiled Meskhetians to a big reception-dinner in the fiat of historian V. Rtskhiladze”.

‘The Chronicle should know that neither I myself, nor the Georgian intelligentsia would have organized a “big reception-dinner” in honour of Turks, who have been the executioners of small nations for centuries.’

V. Rtskhiladze reports that at present the Georgian Moslems (Meskhetians) ‘are fully resolved to regain their Georgian nationality and return to their homeland, Georgia’ and that their delegates have handed over to the Helsinki Group thousands of signatures supporting these demands.

So we confirm the statement of M. Kostava that “the simultaneous use of the words Turks and Meskhetians is the purest nonsense” (it would sound roughly like “Prussian Russians” or “Russian Catalonians”). Such mistakes can only harm the Chronicle, which has enough enemies already.

The letter ends with four lines from the epic poem ‘The Knight in the Tiger Skin’, the last line which is ‘I, Rustaveli, an unknown Meskhetian, wrote this tale’.

*

REPLY

The Chronicle Replies:

‘The Chronicle thanks you for the trouble you have taken to improve the accuracy of its reports. From the sources you quote and your own explanations it is clear that:

‘(1) the Meskhetians are one of the most ancient Georgian tribes and played an outstanding role in the formation of the Georgian nation;

‘(2) in the 17th century, as a result of Turkish conquest, the majority of Meskhetians (but not all) became Moslems and were Turkified;

‘(3) since then, there have been two groups of people living on the territory of historical Meskhetia — Meskhetian Christians, who speak Georgian, and Meskhetian Moslems, who speak a language related to Turkish, but also know the Georgian language;

‘(4) in 1944 the Meskhetian Moslems (and only they) were forcibly exiled to Central Asia and the reference to their Georgian nationality was removed from their passports;

‘(5) at the present time these Meskhetians are fighting to return to their homeland and a social movement also exists to unite them in culture with other Georgians.

‘The Chronicle has continually published information on the Meskhetians’ campaign. The reproach in your letter refers to the terms used to describe this group in these reports.

‘You consider that the term “Meskhetian Turks” does not correspond to historical facts and harms the cause of uniting the Georgian nation. It is true that there has been terminological inconsistency in the Chronicle‘s reports from the start. We shall not try to justify ourselves either by the lack of information available at the time on this delicate problem, or by the fact that representatives of this group have called themselves by this name or similar terms in the texts of official appeals. The Chronicle understands the great importance of using the right titles for groups in society. It seems that the term “Meskhetian Moslems” (or perhaps “Georgian Moslems” or simply “Meskhetians”) would satisfy all interested parties, and the Chronicle intends to keep to that form of words in future.

‘However, we wish to draw your attention to the following points.

‘The task of the Chronicle is merely to publicize the battle for human rights (whether these are the rights of individuals or of social groups) and as in practice this task chiefly consists of publicizing violations of those rights, the role of the Chronicle is essentially negative.

Direct participation in the democratic development and cultural consolidation of a nation is a positive task, a creative task, calling for close personal interest, full knowledge of concrete circumstances, a wide range of forces and a great deal of time. This task rightly falls on the shoulders of the educated class of each individual nation. The Chronicle wishes you every success in such activity. And it will be the effort, knowledge, tolerance and tact that you devote to this matter and the sincere love you show towards the brothers divided from you by fate, whom you are trying to bring back into your family, which will determine by what name they will call themselves in, hopefully, the near future.’

===============================