Yes. IMO it’s not fair to think that all mardikoran are just dumb, illiterate and hungry lumpenproletariat who do not think beyond a piece of bread and sto gram. Yes, part of them are. But the bulk are in an extremely split and socially mobile situation: as I said, in Russia, they are the underdogs, and sometimes treated like subhumans (at least from what I gather speaking to migrants, it is especially bad in Moscow and Northwestern Russia); at home, they are the blokes with the money. The grassroots level at home lives thanks to them. At the same time, in Russia with its relatively freeer climate (at least compared to CA that is) they have access to alternative sources of information. Do not underestimate that.

“in this case it is very small scale, but the impacts are yet to come in years.”

Well not so small-scale actually.

At the end of the day, the remittances and migrants have affected the social-econopmi situation of a big part of Tajik household much more than all international aid and technical cooperation put together. By this I do not say that everything that NGOs do is irrelevant, on the contrary. Some things like micro-crediting work rather well, and in the GBAO, for instance, structures like the AKDN (www.akdn.org), for instance, built infrastructure and provide social services that normally the state provides but does not because it has neither the means, mindset or interest. But at the household and individual level, the remittances had a far stronger effect.

Madina - you are right to a certain extent - it’s true that when you’re hungry, the only thing you can think of is to feed yourself, but when you’re *liiterally* enslaved, abused, discriminated against and have absolutely no human rights, at the end of the day - you will think of changing something - for once and for all - at least for the sake of your children - and that unfortunately involves opposition and politics.

I too agree, the remittances sent home by these migrant laborers can contribute to economic changes; for one thing, i have personally seen men who have worked abroad and economized and have come back and done “business”- in this case it is very small scale, but the impacts are yet to come in years.

In the iranian case, i would like to add to your discussion Ataman, that these Iranian migrants have:

1) migrated decades ago, and have built a solid and stable life till now. They have their jobs, their businesses and their children who go to american and european schools and universities. For one thing - they wouldn’ want to throw all this away and come back. They have this nostalgia for their country but are enjoying their middle and even high class status too much.

2) have migrated because of political and not financial reasons. (it CAN be compared to the brain-drain in the early 90’s in Tajikistan where the majority of the intelligentsia fled the country) but you are right - not to the present situation.

3) have migrated to “relatively” tolerant societies such as the US (whose success is actually credited to these migrants) and Europe. They have been in relatively healthy social conditions and have not faced such racism and dicrimination and intolerance as the tajik have in Russia. This will definitely encourage their temptation in coming back and creating a better Tajikistan.

The tajik population can only be compared to the afghan diaspora in Iran although their situation is much worse (afghan children are not accepted to go to normal iranian schools; they have special schools organized by afghan communities or financed by the government as a kind of aid - its not like a law - but the schools just don’t accept them, and ofcourse being refugees - they can’t complain). Can also be compared to the african and maghrebi populations in France for instance, with the difference that they are relatively integrated into the society now.

But like Vadim, I am convinced that the migrant’s economic relevance and impact, and the political effect that it will have on the mid-term, should not be under-estimated.

I saw myself how their remittances have revitalised village economies even in remote places in the Rasht and Zeravshan regions. A place like Garm, for instance, now has banks, money transfer services, functioning, well-filled bazaars and mobile phone coverage whereas there was nothing in, say, 1999.

Another effects of remittances influx and cash avialibility is the spread of sat TV and parabolic antennas even in remote kyshlaks and, as such, alternative information channels for many Tajik households. Believe me, that will not miss its political effect on the mid-term.

A large part of the mardikoran are seasonal i.e. they spend only part of the year abroad. Many want, and will, return to Tajikistan and indeed invest there (something similar has happened in Sylhet, a region in Bangladesh where a lot of people work in the UK, for instance). The migrants may be the underdogs where they work, at home they are the blokes with the money. They have also been abroad and seen things. That certainly influences their attitude towards authority, i.e. creeping for and buttering regime satraps is less obvious for them.

“Look at Iranian migrants who 25 years ago went to USA.”

Faramarz, that is a totally different situation. Most Iranian migrants in the West are (relatives of) elite members, cronies and supporters of the Pahlavis, intelligentsia, members of religious minorities (Bahais for example) who compromised themselves with the regime of the Shah and more recent political dissidents. That was is not an economic migration. You are right that they have mostly lost touch with reality in Iran itself. Many Iranians don’t even want them back.

If you want to compare the Tajik mardikoran with anything, then it is better to do that with the North Africans in the Mediterranean EU countries or the Pakistani and Bangladeshi in the UK.

This being said, reg. “secondly, nowhere in the world, migrants play role in politics of their home country.”, there are examples of the contrary: the Armenian diaspora in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh for instance; or the Irish in the US and UK in Northern Ireland at the time.

Secondly, nowhere in the world, migrants play role in politics of their home country. Look at Iranian migrants who 25 years ago went to USA. They are so busy that they can’t have time to think of Iran anymore. Their debates and discussions are limited in their own media, and marginalised circles.

Similarly there are millions of chinese, south asian migrants in the West. They only play economic role. That’s it.

Bests,
Faramarz

Best,
Faramarz