Putin promises punishment for Qobiljon’s murder

The death of Qobiljon Aliev, the child of a Tajik migrant, will continue to be discussed. It will not be forgotten, nor should it be allowed to fade from memory. This tragedy is comparable in scale to some of the darkest episodes of the past: the execution of intellectuals during the Soviet era, the dispossession of the wealthy, the persecution of those who recited poetry, practiced religion, or opposed the system. Only the form has changed. If intellectuals were humiliated then, today the consequences of anti-migrant policies have come to the forefront. It is a tragedy shaped by its time.

Following Qobiljon Aliev’s death, Moscow, which had remained largely silent, finally responded. On December 22, Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Tajik President Emomali Rahmon in St. Petersburg on the sidelines of a regular meeting of the Council of Heads of State of the Commonwealth of Independent States. At the start of the meeting, Putin expressed condolences to the Tajik leader and to the family of the deceased child over the brutal killing of 10-year-old Tajik schoolboy Qobiljon Aliev by a 15-year-old ethnic Russian student at a school in the Gorki-2 area of Odintsovo, Moscow Region. Putin described the killing as a terrorist act.

Notably, following the incident, the Tajik leadership, including President Emomali Rahmon, who has ruled the country for 31 years, did not issue a public condolence statement. There was also no information about any Tajik official meeting the victim’s family to express sympathy. Rahmon addressed Qobiljon Aliev’s death only during his meeting with Putin. The conversation between the two presidents has since sparked intense debate on social media.

Many questions have arisen because the leaders did not address the root causes of the tragedy. In particular, there was no discussion of how the 15-year-old perpetrator had clearly prepared for the attack, that his original target was reportedly a mathematics teacher, the lack of adequate school supervision, and failures to comply with safety rules. There was also no mention of the fact that the victim could have been any child—Tajik or even Russian—and that the number of potential victims could have been much higher. Furthermore, the issue of some Russians openly supporting the killing and what this says about the severity of nationalist sentiment in the country was not raised.

According to social media users, both leaders responded to a crime that shocked many around the world with striking emotional detachment. This is particularly notable given that Tajikistan’s initial statement emphasized that the killing was motivated by ethnic hatred. In this context, observers point out that the leaders did not discuss the future of interethnic harmony, nor the rights and safety of more than one million Tajik labor migrants living in Russia and their families, including their children. At the very least, the issue of their right to live safely was not addressed.

Why emphasize the right to life? Consider this: an innocent 10-year-old Tajik child, who had barely begun to understand the world, was killed simply for being Tajik. Does this not suggest that ethnic hatred has reached a point where people are being deprived even of their basic right to live?

It does. So who is responsible? Criminal responsibility may rest with one or two individuals, but moral responsibility lies with many—and among them are influential figures. Anti-migrant rhetoric embedded in public discourse, imperial narratives, ideas of domination and control, modern forms of concealed exploitation, nostalgia for restoring the former Soviet Union, and claims that countries like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan did not truly exist as states—all of these are drops that have filled, and continue to fill, an already overflowing cup.

The case of Qobiljon must not be forgotten, especially by the peoples of Central Asia, millions of whom work in Russia. Yet just one week after the death of 10-year-old Qobiljon, public discussion on social media has largely subsided. Many treated the incident like another disturbing video watched online—shocking for a moment, then quickly replaced by the next sensation. Sensitivity has dulled, and only even greater horrors seem capable of provoking a reaction now.

Qobiljon was not the first Tajik child to be killed in Russia in a horrific manner. Over the past 22 years, cases include five-year-old Daler, five-year-old Huvaydo, five-month-old Umarali, nine-month-old Khurshida, and five-year-old Nilufar, all of whom died tragically. Has anything changed? No. Qobiljon is simply the latest name on this list.

The boy’s body was returned to Tajikistan on December 18 and buried in a cemetery in the Shahrinav district, next to his father’s grave. Russia’s Investigative Committee opened a criminal case under Article 105 (murder) and Article 30, Part 3 in conjunction with Article 105, Part 2 (attempted murder of two or more persons) of the Russian Criminal Code. The suspect, Timofey, was taken into custody for two months on December 18—the same day Qobiljon Aliev was laid to rest.