Intresting Article on Hizb ut-Tahrir
Sobaka (which I learned of from ComingAnarchy) has a very interesting article on the Hizb ut-Tahrir in Tajikistan, although it is two years old. Basically, two Russian reporters take to the streets to find out more about the shadowy Central Asian Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir.
In the beginning of the article, the Tajik being interviewed debunks some common notions about the origin of the Tajik civil war:
The civil war, which was fought here between 1992 and 1995, was not between Mujahedin and Communists, he told us. You cannot understand what has happened in Tajikistan without thinking of the ethnic problems. It’s true that I usually call these people “Tajiks,” but this is a generic word, more like calling all the Slav people of my country Russian.
Our friend had worked in the army before the wars. In those days, he told us, Klyabs (that is, the Tajiks who live mostly in the area where Dushanbe, the capital, is) controlled most of the army among Tajiks in the officer corps. The Khojas up north in the Ferghana Valley controlled the Party positions, and the Pamiris out in the rugged east controlled the state jobs. Except for a few cases, he said to us, the civil war was mostly between Klyabs and Khojas, with the Klyabs trying to take over the party and the Khojas defending this. So when the Union broke apart, the peoples were already divided.
The Tajik the reporters are interviewing also says about the Russian base, “The Russians would do better to leave Tajikistan and defend their own border, because they have done nothing to defend Tajikistan.”
Misha Pozhininsky, the author of this piece, also notes that many members of Hizb ut-Tahrir originate from Uzbekistan.
He has taken in many people, Hizb members or just others, who have been exiled to Tajikistan by Karimov. There are thousands of them now, who abandon Uzbekistan, which is much richer than Tajikistan. If the Hizb turns into a war party, he says, it will be the enemies of Karimov, the ones from Uzbekistan, who will be the soldiers.
“Enemies of Karimov”. So according to Pozhininsky, the enemies of Hizb ut-Tahrir are not westerners, but their own governments.
Unlike some other groups, in Palestine or in Afghanistan, Hizb ut-Tahrir does not seem to be based around hatred of outsiders, “crusaders” or invaders, but improvement of life on the village level, which they see as being possible only when the national secular leaders, corrupt and vicious all of them, are destroyed.
Al Qaeda started as a reaction to the excesses of Middle Eastern rulers as well, but the Saudi monarchs were savvy enough to direct the radicals’ energy against the Soviets in Afghanistan. This is by no means to suggest that the same will be true of Hizb ut-Tahrir, but it is an interesting parallel.
on November 23rd, 2005 at 7:19 am
James, what do you make of Ba’yat?
on November 23rd, 2005 at 7:34 pm
For starters, it is telling that in news sources it is the Tajik government that references the group. One of the reasons I found the above article on the HTI so interesting is precisely because the reporters were not interviewing people who had any affiliation with the Tajik government.
I also think that there are very few good ways to learn about extremism in Central Asia, especially at this point in time. We only really have what the government says, and a few scattered reports here and there. Obviously the government has a strong incentive to advocate the presence of extremist groups because it allows them to tighten their grip. But then just saying “we can’t know” is sort of a cop out….
So we have the government saying that Ba’yat is literally the Taliban migrating into Tajikistan, and others saying it is 100% fabricated by the Government of Tajikistan. I think there is a lot of evidence that (arguably) extreme groups like HTI do have a significant presence, though maybe not the exact sort of presence the Tajik government suggests. And Afghanistan does share a massive and porous border with Tajikistan, so it is plausible that some Taliban affiliates migrate in.
Combining that information, it wouldn’t surprise me if there is a group now calling themselves Ba’yat that gained notoriety after an initial burst of anger and violence fueled by a local dissatisfaction with living conditions which they blame on the government. If you’re living in poverty, who do you turn to when the government won’t support you? Often, religious groups.
On the other hand, would surprise me if a group of Tajiks got together and chartered a new religious organization with the intent of opposing the Tajik government and propagating a new Caliphate. Some might come from Afghanistan, but it sort of seems like the Taliban has enough to keep itself occupied in its own country, although even a few migrants could make a significant impact on the religious ideology of the group.
Time will tell, and I may not be taking into account some important information.
I’d be interested in your take on the group as well, and if you have any sources in particular that have good information on this group.
on November 25th, 2005 at 12:42 am
I have been looking for more information on this without much luck. Accounts from the gov are untrustworthy, and I don’t think NGO accounts are much better. Also, the group itself doesn’t seem to have a legitimate front (yet). The IMU was more “mature” in this sense. Karimov said they are foreign terrorists, the NGO crowd said they were indig nationalists, and the IMU themselves said they were out for a Central Asian Caliphate. The group itself was telling us what we needed to know, but nobody in the West listened. What’s up with that? Why do we always consider it as rhetoric?
Anyways, I am doing some more work on Ba’yat now and will let you know if I turn up anything.