About demolition of monuments in Bishkek

Perestroika "fever" and inescapable passion of mankind to firstly to do and then already to think, left a peculiar mark on the twenty years' period of the parade of sovereignties and declarations of independence of all from the whole lot.

On the open spaces of the CIS it concerned some aspects in the relation to a cultural heritage of the previous times in general, to monuments and thematic sculptures in particular. Many examples can be made since the Soviet period.

At first, after October revolution of 1917, the monuments to tsars and statesmen of different epoch of “bloody” regime of tsarism were taken down. Then, at the end of board of this or that Soviet leader, the monuments to him were started to take down. As they say – you must reap what you have sown. Stalin's epoch was ended and the monuments to him were taken down after a while. Khrushchev epoch was ended and the same picture. And so up to disintegration of the USSR. What was then?

That itch and stir of the former Soviet people are memorable concerning sculptural symbols and images of big and small leaders of the Soviet period. These processes took place in each state of the CIS proceeding from mental specifics of the population and its management. They were accepted to take them down somewhere zealously, with worthy of psychiatrists’ attention and somewhere they didn't begin to hurry up.

In Kyrgyzstan they don’t hurry up with heritage of the Soviet period to arrange the showdown still. Why? As it was already told above – it is mentality. It begins at the Kirghiz with respect for seniors. And the senior generation, generally feels nostalgic for the USSR and how then was well. And the personality of V.I.Lenin is nice to them – he wrote the work “About the right of the nations to self-determination” and the clear boundary of its statehood firstly in the history of the people was determined by his sketches.

But, storing the solidarity with the people of the CIS, “victims” of communistic regime, the monuments of the Soviet period were taken down … from prominent places. Simply speaking, they have rearranged them on the places which are not so evident.

It is possible to assume that our people honor that part of the history that is incarnate in granite, bronze etc. Not at all! The freedom monument (called by analogy to the American statue, but it is a little another on a configuration) was set up at the time of A.Akayev on that place on a central square where once the monument to the leader of the Russian proletariat towered (after “independence” finding by the state moved to Oak park). It stood there till autumn of the 2011 year.

And then the mentality took effect again, only from already other its party. Probably each person would like to leave any trace in national memory. It doesn’t matter what kind of trace, the fact of a trace is important! Someone writes on fences, someone draws on walls, someone cuts out the initials on a bark of trees and someone fights against the monuments, expecting to remain thus in the national memory. And here: they considered that Statue of Liberty is the “wrong” heritage of board of A.Akayev and decided to take it away. If they decided, so done. And the monument to Manas was put on its place, already the second monument to the hero of the national epos, standing along the central street – Chuysky Avenue (the first is near the State philharmonic society that opposite to the City administration).

And for all that the demolition and installation of monuments is not cheap deal and there are a lot of the monuments demanding restoration in the capital. The continuous tears as in the city budget, so in the state one. But, seemingly, it doesn't excite somebody strongly. The main thing is to leave the memory, at any cost. Though to proclaim in all world that “the winter won't be!” or to take down the monuments of the epoch of the dethroned local heads.

Once I met the friend who has just arrived from travel across Spain. I’ve heard a lot of impressions from him! But one of them touched me as the historian especially. The friend told that there is a monument to general fascist Franco still on one of the areas of Madrid. He took an interest at the natives of the Spanish capital: how it is so? And they answered him with wise words: let it be a bad part of our history, but it is our history! Let stand! And let our children, grandsons and great-grandsons, looking at it, remembered what is the fascism and to what it can lead. As they say, the comment is superfluous.

It seems that our Post-Soviet people didn't grow to such level of understanding of the history yet. They want the traces in the history and at any cost.