Heated debates after Karimov: Did he prevent Uzbekistan from becoming another Syria?

Recently awarded the honorary title of “Honored Journalist of Uzbekistan,” the rector of the University of Journalism and Mass Communications of Uzbekistan, Sherzodkhon Kudratkhodja, addressed Lola Karimova’s remarks on the ninth anniversary of the death of the First President, Islam Karimov. Lola Karimova had stated: “If Uzbekistan did not turn into Syria, it was thanks to Islam Karimov’s wise policy.” In response, Kudratkhodja reminded her of her father’s mistakes and advised her not to “scratch where it doesn’t itch.” In his post, which included Karimova’s statement, the rector emphasized that “because of policies that were neither skillful nor well-thought-out, thousands of destinies were broken.”

“Our sister could have asked her father why this happened. Perhaps, unlike our neighbors, it was precisely the misguided policies of the 1990s that led to radicalization here. Perhaps it was Islam Karimov’s style of governance itself that gave rise to elements that made us resemble former Syria or former Afghanistan. As her father himself said, scratching where it doesn’t itch is inappropriate.”

The post sparked wide discussions, and the rector faced heavy criticism from many social media users. Commentators reminded him that he had also served in government positions during Karimov’s rule and questioned why he had not spoken out at that time. Some even shared old posts featuring a photo of Sherzodkhon Kudratkhodja smiling alongside Karimov in the company of poets Abdulla Oripov, Erkin Vohidov, and Quddus Azam, claiming that he had been close to the late president.

“Sherzodkhon Kudratkhodja, true, you were not a rector back then, nor had you received any orders of merit. But we knew you from television in those years. Sitting in a remote region, we watched your commentary and reports on information programs and believed we were living in paradise. And now it turns out, like Yulduz opa, you too were suffering deep inside?!” one user remarked.

Journalist Karimberdi Toramurod, meanwhile, appeared to side with the rector’s perspective, stating that Karimov had once sought to equalize the number of people inside prison with those outside.

“One of his dreams went unfulfilled before his life ended: he wanted the number of those inside to equal the number of those outside!” he wrote.

Honored Artist of Uzbekistan and maqom performer Gulbahor Erkulova also commented, noting that disparaging the past and searching for the faults of former leaders seemed to be unique to Uzbekistan.

“To belittle those who are gone and to look for their shortcomings has become a craft. If those same people had been in their place, they would have understood. May no one ever face the trials that person endured. Only in our country do people keep talking about those who came before,” she wrote.

In response to hundreds of such comments, Sherzodkhon Kudratkhodja issued a rebuttal, saying he had not expected his post from the previous day to provoke such a reaction. He remarked that even the opinions of those who wrote negatively were of interest to him. Claiming that today’s environment differs from the past in that it allows for free expression, he emphasized that as long as there was no insult, he was prepared to endure any criticism. He then addressed the questions directed at him with three main arguments.

“My answers are as follows: firstly, I did not write against anyone. As a political scientist, I expressed my own opinion and position in response to another view which, after all, is permissible. Secondly, it is true that one does not usually speak ill of the deceased. However, in this case we are not talking about an ordinary believer or Muslim. Within the fields of political science and history, we constantly study the lives and actions of late kings, emperors, commanders, monarchs, presidents, prime ministers, and ministers as cases. If that is not allowed, then why do we need history, political science, or philosophy at all? Thirdly, it was not only me, no one could say anything during that era. Those who dared to speak even a little were either imprisoned, or, even if they were Heroes of Uzbekistan, stripped of their positions, dismissed, and pushed out of public life. Some were even physically eliminated.”

The rector also recalled a case involving Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.

“After Stalin’s death, at the 20th Congress, Nikita Khrushchev delivered a report about his tyranny and cruelty. From the audience, someone shouted: ‘Then why didn’t you speak out at the time?’ Khrushchev responded: ‘Who is that? Stand up.’ Silence followed. Then Nikita Sergeyevich said: ‘You, see? We were afraid back then too, and we remained silent.’’

Kudratkhodja stressed that only now could he speak openly, and that his boldness today might not be understood by those who still cling to nostalgic sentiments that idolize a leader. However, he said that those who lost relatives during repressions, those expelled in those dark years, along with their families and children, would immediately understand his words.

“Those who mourned for years in their households, who lived in grief, who were crushed — they will understand me. Whether they were academics, businessmen, farmers, ordinary believers, or imams. It is enough that we have forgotten history and its dark days. We must remember and know them, so that such days never return.”

At the end of his remarks, Sherzodkhon Kudratkhodja emphasized that Uzbekistan should strive to resemble countries like Malaysia, South Korea, Japan, and Singapore, not Syria.

It was not only social media activists and users who responded to the rector’s post. Lola Karimova, whose earlier statement had prompted his reaction, also did not remain silent. Her reply, in some sense, could be seen as a warning.

Addressing the fact that some had ambiguously reacted to her words and that the rector had referred to the late president’s daughter as “our sister,” Lola Karimova responded on her social media page:

“I am not a sister to those who do not respect my father. On the occasion of the ninth anniversary of the First President’s death, those who ordered such meaningless reactions to my post are simply unfortunate. I have no political ambitions whatsoever. That is why I have no intention of engaging in any polemics.”

Karimova concluded her statement with a Russian proverb: “Don’t stir up trouble when it is quiet.”

Thus, Sherzodkhon Kudratkhodja, who, after preparing a report from the Boysun “25 Years of Independence” gas field explosion, had long faced criticism for saying there was no smell of gas, as social media users recalled, once again finds himself under a shower of negative reactions.

In short, a clash of opinions is something that occurs in any society and any era. In fact, it should be so. Ultimately, it is up to people themselves to decide which side of the argument they agree with. The main point lies in approaching matters with adequacy and responding with tolerance. So, whose argument do you side with? Share your opinion in the comments.