Not long ago, someone in the comments to one of our articles expressed confusion as to why we were promoting the independence of one of the Caucasian Muslim peoples when «they represent no one» and are «stateless separatists». We’ll leave the stateless people to the commenter’s conscience, but let’s discuss the «separatists» and «representing no one» not only in relation to this particular people, but in all such cases, which are becoming more and more common.
The argument of these critics, which comes up again and again in the discussion, boils down to the fact that those who are in their homeland have the right to speak on behalf of the people, not those who have left for distant lands. Here’s a tricky question for supporters of this approach — why don’t they, being in their homeland, openly call for independence, but simply not condemn the fact that young people of this nation are being sent to die in Ukraine for the Russian world?
Or do you believe that this is in the interests of your people, and that Kadyrovs and Evkurovs represent them in this way (as do their counterparts in other republics)? Then there is no need to talk with you.
Or do you fully understand that your people are controlled by a colonial power, which has deprived them not only of independence, but even of the autonomy they had in the 90s, and uses them as cannon fodder for the Russian world? But then the question arises — why don’t you come out and publicly condemn it?
If only those like you who are in your homeland can speak on behalf of your people, why don’t you do it? Why don’t you raise your voice loudly (not just in the comments section) and defend your interests?
And we all know the answer to this question — because it is IMPOSSIBLE, because anyone who does so will either end up in a high security prison for a long time, or simply disappear, or be «eliminated upon arrest and resistance» as has happened before.
But if we understand this, and if you, who live in your homeland, are not condemned for not doing it, then why do you condemn those who do it from abroad and use the opportunity to speak out openly?
You claim that in order to call people to fight, you have to be on the ground and fight yourself. But fewer people who make such claims actually fought with weapons in their hands ten to twenty years ago. Why didn’t they do it when they had the chance? And how do you know if those who are calling from abroad now were somehow connected to that struggle?
All these arguments about fighting for the people in their homeland would only make sense in one case — if there was such a fight going on there. Then these people would probably have joined it, either saying the same things they are saying now in their homeland, or supporting the leaders that the struggle in their homeland has put forward.
But now the bitter truth is that those who are in their homeland are forced to remain silent. And even more bitter is the fact that some of them have not only been forced, but have adopted the ideology of the enemy in their minds and souls, and have turned from people of their own nation into bearers of the Russian world, in other words, «mankurts».
So who can and should speak on behalf of the people in such a situation? To understand the answer to this question, we must first understand what is meant by this «people». If «the people» means the «population,» then it is people like the Kadyrovs, Melikovs, Khabirovs, etc., who speak on their behalf.
If «the people» means the NATION, then those who speak on its behalf should be the bearers of sovereign national consciousness and thinking, expressing the perspective of national interests. And if such people exist in the homeland, they should naturally be the first to speak. So you, if you live in your homeland and consider yourself such a person.
But if you are unable to do so, do not be surprised if those who are able to do so, even if they are not in the homeland, speak instead. As for the final decision about the destiny of a people, of course it will be made on their land. But in order for that destiny to be different from what it is now — powerless, colonial, and cannon fodder in foreign wars — there must be those who convey to the people a non-colonial and oppressed, but rather a free national position.
And on our website we will report on the activities of just such representatives of their people.