Abolishing propiska: The journey of public activism and legal change

Such incidents were quite common in the recent history of Uzbekistan. Not only did an Uzbek move from one place to another, but also the purchase of property, education, even medical treatment, and employment depended on their passport, or rather, their “propiska” (residence permit). Citizens from the provinces were literally “hunted” on the streets of Tashkent at night. Citizens of a country called Uzbekistan were interrogated at checkpoints on the roads and entered their capital as if they were entering the territory of another country. This may seem like a fairy tale to those who walk freely, live freely, and work freely in Tashkent today, but all this is true. A bitter past. QALAMPIR.UZ wants to look into this past of the “propiska” that is on the verge of being completely abolished in Uzbekistan.

On January 24, at the third plenary session of the Senate, the law “On the list of categories of citizens of the Republic of Uzbekistan who are subject to permanent registration in the city of Tashkent and the Tashkent region” was declared invalid. That is, there is no longer such a thing as a Tashkent “propiska.” However, this simple change in the legislation has already left an indelible mark on people’s lives.

The history of “propiska” dates back to the colonial period. In 1925, the concept and term “propiska” was first officially introduced into circulation throughout the USSR by the decree “On registration of the population living in urban areas.” In 1932, after the establishment of a unified passport system in the USSR, the requirement for propiska began to tighten. At that time, most of the population of the colonized territories did not have passports, and rural residents had to obtain written permission from the village council to travel to the city. From that moment on, this scourge called propiska began to make people's lives more difficult. It became difficult for peasants to bring their products to the city markets, trade routes stopped, and the difference between the areas called "city" and "rural" began to grow in the eyes of people. There were all the conditions for urban life, the urban population was full, and the rural population was forced to live in poverty. This was the Soviet Union's re-establishment of the serfdom of the imperialist regime, which it had once criticized.

By 1974, the USSR had fully provided the population with passports, and by this time, the concepts of passport and "propiska" had become closely intertwined. If earlier the main issue was to keep the worker-peasant in their territory, now this system acquired military significance and began to serve mainly defensive purposes.

In cities such as Leningrad and Moscow, direct access to the "propiska" was prohibited to limit the population. But even then, some opportunities remained. For example, a worker who came to the capital from another region to seek his fortune was allowed to enter the "propiska" if he worked continuously for 10 years in a clearly defined field based on a certain limit.

By the 1990s, even in the USSR, surrounded by "iron walls," it was openly recognized that the "propiska" regime was unjust. In 1990, the Constitutional Control Committee recognized that the "propiska" system was a restriction of human rights, and in 1991 adopted a decision to abolish such a system from 1992. But by this time, the union itself had disintegrated. Even then, several republics could not abandon the "propiska" system, including Uzbekistan. Only after continuous criticism from international organizations did these republics begin lifting the restrictions on this system, but not Uzbekistan. This system has been pushing representatives of all sectors of society away for many years.

One question remains unanswered: Why did the "propiska" system survive in Tashkent for more than 30 years after the collapse of the USSR? The events of February 1999 are cited as the reason. That year, a total of six explosive devices were detonated in different parts of Tashkent, and the terrorist act caused concern among the regions. After this incident, the ability to freely enter the capital of Uzbekistan, Tashkent, and to freely enter the "propiska" was restricted. The ability of the regions to buy houses in Tashkent, or even to receive them as a gift from a Tashkent resident, was also abolished.

Now, those who came from the regions to be registered in the capital had to submit the necessary documents to a special commission established under the Tashkent city administration and receive a positive conclusion from the commission before being granted permission and a "propiska" issued by the internal affairs bodies. However, in Tashkent, you often had to have a lot of money or a lot of experience to do this.

Now let’s talk about the abolition of this system. The “propiska” we are talking about was abolished not because officials realized the truth, but as a result of the unanimity of citizens and public activism. Similarly, the “propiska” is one of the greatest achievements of public control over officials in Uzbekistan. In 2018, the issue of establishing a “propiska” for the city of Tashkent was hotly discussed on the portal for the discussion of regulatory and legal documents. There, people and some deputies began to write about the problems they encountered because of the “propiska” and expressed their opinions and suggestions.

These objections were ignored by officials until President Shavkat Mirziyoyev himself criticized the “propiska” in 2021. Some deputies even opposed the abolition of the “propiska,” stating that if the “propiska” were abolished, Tashkent would be overrun with people.

“I have seen many difficulties in my life. Living without a home, living in rented accommodation with my child after getting married… That is why I build a lot of houses. I know that once in Tashkent it was a pain, it was impossible to get a “propiska”. My second decision is that everyone should get a “propiska” in Tashkent… You can feel it yourself, if you go to Tashkent now, you are also not a citizen of Uzbekistan. Why can’t you live in the capital? For 10-15 years, I didn’t have an apartment, and I didn’t have a “propiska” until I became a “candidate of sciences” (PhD) at the institute. My only fault was that I wasn't born in Tashkent. What do you mean? This is not justice, is it?” the president said.

Would you believe it if I said that a miracle happened after the president himself said that he had suffered from "propiska"? It's as if officials, following the president's insistence, did a 180-degree turn and began to openly and sharply criticize the "propiska" regime.

Suddenly, "propiska" began to be criticized on all TV channels, and those who introduced "propiska" themselves now began to criticize it on the front lines. And the public watched and laughed at all this. In 2020-2021, activists argued with officials and even with their elected deputies to abolish this system.

Initially, the Ministry of Internal Affairs chose the path of changing the word "propiska" to "registration by place of residence." But in practice, its essence did not change. However, when this also caused public criticism, serious thinking about the system began, and only on January 24, 2025, the Law “On the List of Categories of Citizens of the Republic of Uzbekistan - Persons Subject to Permanent Propiska in the City of Tashkent and the Tashkent Region” was approved by senators.

At the meeting, it was said that the problems associated with “propiska” have caused dissatisfaction among our people for many years, as a result of which specialists were left stranded, unable to exercise their right to work in the organization of their choice and live where they want. This decision itself was a mistake from the very beginning, and people were fired because of “propiska.”

However, it is not easy to forget this mistake, which the authorities corrected in 30 years, and its consequences. This remains a bitter past for those who have experienced the problem of “propiska”.

“Propiska” is not simply disappearing in Uzbekistan. It is leaving behind its successor – localism. Today, among citizens of a country, there are situations such as the concepts of “I am from Tashkent, you are from the region”, blaming the regions for the problems in the capital. All this is a child of the “propiska” system. But even in the most difficult days of the “propiska” years, the hardworking residents of the capital wholeheartedly helped those who came to Tashkent to work and live.

I was also a student from 2017-2018. We lived in one apartment with the landlord and 10 girls. We were 4 students and working girls and women who came to work and earn money. Since we were students, we were almost safe because we had a temporary “propiska”. But our other roommates would have to hide in a wardrobe, a TV box, or on the balcony when there was a knock on the door. It is impossible to describe the fear and anxiety in the eyes of these women who came to raise their children and earn a living in Tashkent. Almost every week, internal affairs officers would search the house, tearing down the blankets and looking for illegal immigrants. One day, the officers kicked us all out into the street. In the middle of the night, 10 of us girls were left alone on the street with our blankets and beds...