Aleksandr Shkljajev, Eva Toulouze
The National Question in Udmurtia and the
Mass-Media in the 1990-ies
The national question, whose existence in Russia has long been denied, is one
of the significant items in Udmurtia’s political life. The Soviet propaganda enhanced
pompously and repeatedly the famous theme of friendship among all the peoples of
the
multinational USSR and until the first steps of glasnost, this voice was
unanimous. In the national areas this question emerged finally at the end of the 1980’s
and since then has occupied a remarkable place in the mass media, in Udmurtia as
well as elsewhere. The interesting characteristic in Udmurtia is the polemical and
emotional character of the debate on national items, which seems to be more stressed
here than in other autonomous units of the former Soviet Union.
In order to understand the main features of this debate, it is necessary to
present the historical and demographic background of the national issue.
1. The national situation in Udmurtia: a short survey
a) Demographic aspects
The important fact is that Udmurtia has known during the 20th century a
substantial increase of the non-Udmurt population. At the end of the 1920-ies the
eponym nationality was a majority: in 1926, Udmurts represented 52,3% of the
republic’s inhabitants1. Russian presence has started centuries ago, but the unbalanced
demographic situation is a characteristic of this century: the non-Udmurt population
has been steadily and powerfully increasing from the 1930-ies on, so that in 1989
Udmurts do not represent more than 30,9%2, which is one of the lower percentage of
indigenous peoples on their ancestral lands among the Finno-Ugric peoples of Central
Russia. For the Udmurts, this has been a painful process, accompanied by the feeling
of being little by little dispossessed of their home and of becoming an inferior kind of
human beings; but its main actor, the migrating population, has been completely
unaware of the changes their presence induced.
The former Russian implantation has two main features: the older one, from
the 14th century on, concerned peasants flying from the central Old Russia territories
in search of new, free lands; later, especially since the 18th century, the development
of industry in the South and the Siberian route through the North of the area occupied
by Udmurts have thoroughly attracted new populations populations. The metallurgy
factories founded in Izhkar (Izhevsk) in 1760 and Votkinsk where most dynamic
centres and called for further migrations. They soon after their foundation (1773)
were undertaken by the State and became centres of national importance3 in arm
production.
The recent input of new populations from other parts of Russia is thoroughly
connected with industrialisation and urbanisation. The Soviet priority given to
industry on one hand and to urban areas on the other granted a most powerful
development in this direction. As a matter of fact, although in Udmurtia as well as
elsewhere the rural exodus is a reality, and more and more Udmurts are moving to
cities (in 1989, 44% where urban residents4), the majority of Udmurts still lives in the
countryside. This is the second main feature of the national situation in Udmurtia: not
only the Udmurt population is numerically a minority on its own historical lands, but
it is mostly rural, and represents in the urban areas but a low percent of the whole
population: in 1989, the Udmurts were but 19,8% of the urban residents5. Although
this represents a considerable percent of the Udmurts, as a mass, urban Udmurts aren’t
numerous enough, comparing to others, to feature in any way Udmurtia’s city life.
Social prestige and influence are concentrated in areas alien to the Udmurts.
b) psychological factors
From the beginning of Russian colonisation, the coexistence of aboriginal and
immigrated communities has not taken place without incidents. We can remind the
Udmurt participation in different uprisings against the central power (in which an
important element was protest against Russian occupation and its concrete
colonisation forms) : even before the well-know uprisings by Stepan Razin (1660-61)
and Emeljan Pugachev (1773-75)6, Udmurts are known to have participated to
Bolotnikov’s revolts (1572-1574 and 1582-1584) and to the so-called Bashkir revolts
(1616,1662-64). But there have been incidents much closer to our period and thus
more pregnant in collective memory as the famous Vuzh Multan affair7, at the end of
the last century, whose resonance at the time extended to Moscow and Paris. It is a
kind of Dreyfus affair in Russian context, which is often quoted even today in national
polemics. The point of this affair is that in 1892 ten Udmurt peasants were accused
and convinced of having committed on the person of a Russian beggar a ritual murder.
No serious evidence was produced against them, they were mainly guilty of belonging
to a people suspected to practice barbaric rituals. The Russian writer and journalist
Korolenko interfered after the first process and during the following two processes
took scholars tryed to prove that either Udmurts practised human sacrifices either they
didn’t. At the third process, the ten Udmurts were acquitted.
The first decades of the Soviet power were a most ambiguous period. On one
hand, the official politics gave to the Udmurt population new, formerly unknown
advantages and rights. On the other hand, Udmurtia’s Communist Party organisation,
mostly led by non-Udmurt industrial workers, was negatively disposed towards the
rural world that was for its leaders totally alien. The ambitious aims of the young
Udmurt intellectuals8 of getting more and more autonomy and cultural rights for the
Udmurts appeared to them as a growing political threat. “Nationalism” - in Udmurtia
as in the whole Russia - became a terrible word, one of the main accusations for
political enemies to the Communists, definitely a bourgeois ideology9. The concrete
result of this trend was in Udmurtia that at the beginning of the 1930-ies10, a wide
process was instructed against Kuzebaj Gerd and other Udmurt and Finno-Ugric
intellectuals, accused of having formed a secret organisation in order to separate the
Finno-Ugric regions from the USSR and put them under Finnish protectorate. The
accused were convinced and condemned. Most of them were shot in 193711.
These dramatic episodes in the national history have left a very deep trace in
the conscience of the Udmurt population: fear has characterised their approach to
national issues, not only the concrete fear of punishment, but simply the feeling that
such items are dangerous and even taboo. The most active opponents to Kuzebaj
Gerd’s rehabilitation were Udmurts occupying higher social positions12…
This history as well as the aspects presented before explain why the debate on
such issues could not be serene : one party was accustomed to rule without discussion
and to consider the Udmurts as lower people, ignorant peasants ; the other needed to
compensate a long unnatural silence and had to learn how to discuss,.
2. The beginning of the national awakening and the massmedia
The national item emerged in the mass-media in the years preceding the split
of the Soviet Union. At first it appeared in connection with other questions, but little
by little it acquired autonomy and became a political issue in itself.
The first concrete topic connected with the national question which provoked
open discussions and protest was focused on the name of the Udmurt capital: in 1985,
the Central Committee of the CPSU had changed the name of Izhevsk into Ustinov, as
a posthumous homage to D.F. Ustinov, Marshall of the USSR and Minister of
Defence. The recovering of the traditional name became a goal of what was going to
become a national movement: in 1988 the capital of Udmurtia has regained her former
name13. Nevertheless, this question was not only a national one: many non-Udmurts
could wish to recover the name they were used to.
In 1989 new debates develop on more precise political subjects, connected
with the national situation and national policies; they appear in parallel with the
development of the Udmurt national movement, which started in 1989 with an
organisation called “Club of Udmurt Culture”, led by the philosopher Albert Razin.
The official paper “Udmurt Pravda” expressed in August 1989 the opinion that the
Udmurt national movement’s aim was to create an ethnically pure republic with no
other nationalities in it14. This most radical position, denied by its supposed author15,
provoked abundant reactions16 on both Udmurt and non-Udmurt sides and was to
have a deep influence on the further development of the national question: sincere or
feigned assertions of self-protection against a radical Udmurt nationalism subsist until
the present times.
The same year, the national question is officially and openly treated even by
the Communist party : in fall 1989, the regional committee of the party dedicated to
these problems a plenary session. The discussion was later published in the official
paper “Udmurt Pravda”17. Different opinions were expressed during this meeting.
Some of them are so characteristic, that they deserve to be quoted: “Many Udmurt
parents don’t want their children to attend Udmurt classes, they don’t see the necessity
of it. They suppose that their children won’t ever need Udmurt outside their original
region of Sharkan18. In national classes, students receive a smaller amount of
knowledge than in Russian ones”. The same person, whose nationality is not
indicated, simply declared that the national problem “does not exist in our country”,
although her paper contains examples of it : the ideological habits and pressure are
still a limit to political analysis. Some other participants sees more keenly the real
state of things: “the national question is like a under… fire in a wood, that slowly
increases until once it explodes on the surface and burns with terrible pain”19.
These discussions were followed by many others in different forums, not only
written media, but also radio and TV20. The debate in the media could not but follow
the institutionalisation of the national movement. The “Club of Udmurt Culture”,
became two years later “Demen21 - Association for the Udmurt culture”. Their action
had sufficient political impact and led, in November 1991, to the organisation of an
Udmurt Congress, which elected an Udmurt Counsel, called “Udmurt Kenesh22”.
Udmurt Kenesh is still the central organ of the national movement. .
3) The themes in the polemics about national issues
When examining the press as a whole, the first general remark to be done is
that a very natural partition is connected to the language used. The papers written in
Russian - which represent the larger part of Udmurtia’s press - insist on the point of
view of the non-Udmurt citizens. Their arguments are clearly more widely spread, not
only because the non-Udmurt population is numerously superior and has more organs
to express its opinions, but also because the Udmurt population is able to read in
Russian and reads also these papers, while the non-Udmurts as a rule do not know the
local language and are not interested in it. The press written in Udmurt clearly and
logically sympathises with the national movement. Nevertheless, the Udmurt national
movement is not absolutely united, and discordant notes are not rare: the press in
Udmurt is also the place where internal polemics - far from mild - take place23. This is
a natural phenomenon, but the lack of unity is as a matter of fact a sign of frailty.
Another interesting fact is that usually the national question is presented in
interviews, conversations, readers’ letters, and not editor’s papers. It seems that the
editors wish to respect a kind of apparent neutrality, leaving the responsibility of the
ideas expressed to external personalities.
In the discussions on national issues several kind of arguments are to be
distinguished. Some themes are very thoroughly connected with the political agenda.
They can be called “matter-of-fact” themes, based on concrete political questions:
must the President of Udmurtia be an Udmurt? If not, must he know the local
language? Must the Udmurt language become State language? With what functions?
What will the national symbols represent? But besides these concrete - and symbolic political issues, more general attitudes - emotional or theoretical - are revealed by the
public debates: who is the victim and who is the aggressor? How must the
contemporary society understand nationalism?
Nationalism in general
The very notion of nationalism was traditionally considered by Soviet
ideologists as “bourgeois” and harmful. But looking back to the past, an other form of
nationalism was discovered, directly connected with communism24. It is clear that
nowadays a new attitude to nationalism has emerged, in parallel with a more serene
treatment of this notion, and the idea of a “healthy nationalism” can be found in the
present Russian media at national as well as republican level25. This idea has been
formulated in Udmurtia by Svetlana Smirnova, President of the Republican
Committee on Nationality Issues: “According to English scholars, in every community
nationalism is simply necessary. Nationalism is the basic reaction of self-preserving
and self-protection, which is to be found by practically all peoples (…) In our
Republic, the appearance of nationalism is recent, but until today, no unhealthy
manifestations have ever been noticed”26. Smirnova thus enhance the ideas of self-
preservation and self-defence that have occupied a special place in the national
discussion.
Aggression and self-defence
The Udmurt national movement and concretely the Udmurt intellectuals
consider their action as a form of self-defence against the national discrimination they
have been for decades submitted to, without having the means of expressing
themselves. For them, it is a late answer to an aggression started long before. The nonUdmurt population, and more precisely the active part of it expressing itself through
the media, considers itself as victim of aggression coming from the Udmurts.
Therefore one of the interesting items present in the polemic is connected with the
idea of aggression/self-defence and its corollaries: which part of the population can
be considered as “indigenous”?
The notion of colonisation itself is very much discussed: according to the
Udmurts, they have been colonised and have therefore the moral right to be invested
with national and political autonomy: “we are aborigines, not a national minority”,
declares the Udmurt poetess S. Pushkina-Blaginina, during the 1996 electoral
campaign27. The non-Udmurts do not consider them selves lest concerned by local
sovereignty, and stress that nationality is no profession and that sovereignty must
belong to the whole “multinational people of Udmurtia”, as deputies have often
stressed in the Duma.
The structuring of a national movement awoke other nationalities to the
conscience of their identity as a community: a Tatar’s Social Center, a Chuvash
Association, and among others also ans Association for Russian Culturewere thus
created. The latter’s president, M. Kokorin, explained later its foundation: “On my
opinion, the appearance of a national association is a special form of protest. It means
that for some reason the national feelings of the people are suffering. In our case, the
State does not support in Udmurtia the historical and spiritual principles the Russian
nation is based on. At the same time, the mass media are submerged by materials
hostile to the Russians, in which Russians are called lazy and stupid”28. The main
theme used by non-Udmurt media is human rights, repeated as a leitmotiv: all the
inhabitants of Udmurtia must share the same rights, they must be equal.. To this
argument, the Udmurts answer that equal rights can be effective only between equals,
and that Udmurts must be given some privileges in order to balance their
unfavourable starting point. These points have often offered a good soil for the
Russian positions: Russian activists denounce the conspicuous amounts spent for
Udmurt culture: “My accounts reveal, that Russian national culture is financed in
Udmurtia not more than one to hundred. We can say that as far as cultural programs
are concerned, the amount spent for each Russian inhabitant of the republic is
conditionally three hundred times lesser, than for another part of the population”29.
The Finno-Ugric connection is also goal of severe attacks : “Recently the first allRussia Congress of Finno-Ugric peoples has been held […]. At the Congress no
gratitude has been expressed towards the Russian people, who gave the Udmurts and
other peoples participating at the Congress not only the bases of their written
language, but also a State”30.
But often the papers do not express only ideas confronted to one another: the
tone or the connotations are emotional, suggestive and express with less delicacy the
strain awakened by these questions. The main emotion expressed is fear: the national
ambitions of Udmurts have been compared for instance with a jinn, whose bottle must
not be opened, otherwise he will provoke disasters31. But the bottle had been opened:
“Now we must not be silent any more. The “jinn” of national hatred, although still
week and not dangerous, has got out of the parliamentary kitchen, out from the walls
of deputy’s assemblies”32. The same author continues: “This part of the [Udmurt]
intellectuals has already started to act with an “axe” by pressing on deputies,
demonstrating, presenting ultimatums, and even threatening of a territorial division33”.
But even later, the Russian press persists not only by using political arguments, but
also by practising roundabouts. A good example is the celebration of the 100th year
from the Vuzh Multan affair by the Russian paper “Gorodskoj Stil’” just before the
electoral campaign: the drawing illustrating the text represents a fire, whose smoke
rises in form of a question mark34. It suggests that in fact some questions subsist about
the actual innocence of the accused Udmurts. It is a discreet way of reminding that
Udmurts were still lately but non-civilised aborigines…
To these proceedings the Udmurt media answer sourly and very keenly. They
regularly denounce the tonality of the Russian papers and the way the latter express
their despise towards the Udmurts : “People with imperial tendencies humiliate and
insult in each possible way the benevolent smaller peoples. One single word is
enough to create a whole system aimed to destroy our dignity”35. The writer Pjotr
Chernov does not hesitate to give a name to this attitudes and writes about “Russian
chauvinism - or more precisely, anti-Udmurt campaign led by a considerable part of
Russian intellectuals and other groups of Russian population”36.
Concrete demands
The “matter of fact” themes mostly appear during the concrete events of the
political live, as elections and electoral campaigns. These give seldom the opportunity
to representatives of the national movement to gain serious positions, for the
electorate is mostly composed of non-Udmurts; these feel themselves threatened by
the Udmurt leaders, whose political programme they are not concerned with, and
happen to express quite radical positions37. If electoral campaigns have given the
Udmurt national movement concrete opportunities to express its positions and
demands, it has also been used on merely demagogic purposes, especially by
candidates wishing to get votes by non-Udmurt population: the national question has
therefore be also used with practical electoral functions38.
The main demands of the Udmurt movement are a parliament with two
houses, one of them formed on the bases of ethnicity, a larger financing for Udmurt
culture, quotas in Universities, in political organs. The language question is still one
of the most acute: although the demand of the Udmurt national movement that
Udmurt should be State language equal to Russian is not meant to reduce the rights of
non-Udmurts, the discussion around it has a most symbolic character. The Russian
party uses different arguments to oppose it, stressing as well the cost of such measure
as the feeble weight of the Udmurt population: “the national languages are of limited
importance and they must not be imposed to the whole population, whose two thirds
are non-Udmurts”, declared M. Kokorin, the President of the Association for Russian
culture39.
An Udmurt utopia?
The main actors of the Udmurt national movement are intellectuals living and
working in the capital, whose mission is also to represent the Udmurts living in rural
areas. Some of them are scholars, as the philosopher Albert Razin or the historian
Kuz’ma Kulikov, others are writers and poets, as Pjotr Chernov and the younger
Viktor Shibanov.
They formulate different approaches depending on their
personality: besides concrete demands and polemical arguments there are also
innocent utopias, as Viktor Shibanov’s. The poet has a dream: in 2035, “not only in
villages, but also in towns Udmurts live happily. In the evening, when the city lit up,
you can read in the streets firm names in Udmurt: “Kunokua”, “Dis’kut”, “Perepech”,
“Keremet”40. Even a visitor coming from far away understands: this land is Udmurt.
In the centre of the city stands a huge stone and a high tree, to whom our ancestors
prayed. And around them, many many guests: Russians and Hungarians, Greeks and
Mari, Chinese and Arabs”41. This idyllic vision expresses undoubtedly what many
Udmurt intellectuals would like once to see … But everybody knows, that it is only a
dream, that only a poet can permit himself such utopias. Politicians must keep in
touch with reality.
These samples show that the national question in Udmurtia has really become
part of the public debate. This discussion is not serene: both parties, for very different
historical reasons, are often most emotional. The Udmurt population, and especially
the intellectuals, has experienced a despise in Russians’ everyday attitude: it is a
common experience for those who live far from the original Udmurt surroundings42 Izhevsk is a Russian, not an Udmurt centre. This historical experience of being
victims of colonisation and injustice, as well as their limited autonomous political
experience, may explain the keenness, the sensitiveness revealed by their reactions to
the arguments of the opposite party.
The Russian party also feels itself aggressed: non-Udmurts have been living
there for a long time without apparent tensions, they are responsible for well-fare by
industrial production; they never paid attention to the underground feelings of the
Udmurt population. Moreover, for them, the Udmurts are even remote than in
statistics, for, as we have seen, there share in city life is extremely limited. The nonRussian population ignore, and therefore doesn’t understand and even despises the
rural world the Udmurts belong to. For the Russian population and their
representatives, the national question is “much ado about nothing”, an unjustified fuss
which concretely threatens them.
These parallel reactions to aggression, accompanied by one’s victimisation and
the opposite party moral indictment, have found a large place in Udmurtia’s mass
media in the last decade. This is in itself a sign of progress towards normality, for the
problem is real and deserves public discussion. Nevertheless, as it has been practised
until today, the debate leads to nothing, for both parties only express their points of
view or their emotions, without trying to find a dialogue with the other. Is such a
dialogue possible? Probably not, until the more powerful of the adversaries does not
try to take into account realities it has long ignored. The solution is not in words either
in articles, but in deeper mutual understanding and analyses.
NOTES
1
Rein Taagepera, Soome-Ugri rahvad Venemaa Föderatsioonis (Tartu: Ilmamaa, 2000), lk.309.
Seppo Lallukka, The East-Finnic Minorities in the Soviet Union. An Appraisal of the Erosive Trends
(Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1990), p.106. The whole Udmurt population in the Udmurt
Republic was, according to the 1989 census, of 497.900 persons, representing 66,5% of all the Udmurts
in Russia (Taagepera, op. cit., p.300).
3
Izhevsk is still a very important centre in arm production, where for example Kalashnikovs are
produced.
4
In 1939, the urban part of the Udmurt population was but 7,9%! These data from V.E.Vladykin, L.S.
Hristoljubova, Etnografiya udmurtov (Izhevsk: Udmurtiya, 1997) str.18.
5
Ibid., p.18.
6
A very detailed study on Udmurts participation in these uprisings is M.A.Sadakov, “Uchastie
udmurtov v krestyanskoy vojne pod rukovodstvom Pugacheva”, Zapiski, vyp. 11(Izhevsk, 1949), str. 333. Inspite of the severe ideological frame imposed by the period in which the article was written, the
data presented are most interesting.
7
The affair is called by the name of the village where the initial event happened, Vuzh Multan in
Udmurt, which means Old Multan. There is on this question an abundant literature. A good overview by
a witness of the process, who is also a very competent historian, is P.N. Luppov, Gromkoe delo
multanskih udmurtov (votjakov) obvinyavščihsya v čelovečeskom zhertvoprinošenii (1892-1986 g.g.)
(Udkniga, 1952). Recently an interesting overview has been presented by Vasili Vanjushev in a book
dedicated to V. Korolenko: V.G. Korolenko i Udmurtiya (Izhevsk: Udmurtiya, 1995), str. 141-256.
8
There were among them most remarkable personalities. Let us remind here merely the name of
Kuzebaj Gerd, teacher, poet, scholar, editor, journalist, who was in the 1920-ies the charismatic figure
in Udmurt intellectual life.
9
“Nationalism is a reactionary bourgeois ideology, which preaches national exclusiveness, privileges to
one ethnic group and despise towards the others” in Slowar’ russkogo yazyka v 4-h t (T.P.M.,
Gosizdat. inostr. i nac. Slowarej, 1958), str.572.
2
10
This process is the first in Russia forged directly against intellectuals belonging to small nationalities.
This example will be afterwards followed everywhere.
11
This dramatic episode in Udmurtia’s history has been revealed by Nikolai Kuznetsov in Iz mraka,
(Izhevsk: Izdatel’stvo udmurtskogo universiteta, 1994), dedicated to the whole history of repressions in
Udmurtia; recently a monograph has been written exclusively on this affair: K.I. Kulikov, Delo SOFIN
(Izhevsk, 1997).
12
On these questions, F. K. Ermakov, Kuzebaj Gerd. K izučeniju biografii pisatelya. Sbornik statej i
dokumentov (Izhevsk, 1995), str. 85..
13
The name to be recovered, Izhevsk, is in fact a Russian name corresponding to the Udmurt form of
“Izhkar”, used nowadays in Udmurt texts and oral language.
14
L.Katkova, “Klub udmurtskoj kul’tury. Kakie problemy on podnimaet?” Udmurtskaya pravda,
1989, 1/08.
15
Called N. Simanov: “Čeberma ulonmes, UKO!”, Keneš, 1990, N°2, str. 45.
16
Answers to these statements by Udmurt intellectuals were immediately published: V. Vanyushev,
K.Kulikov, S. Samsonov, “Nerealističnost’ očevidna”, Udmurtskaya pravda, 1989, 9/08; G. Vasiljeva,
“Kazhdyj i vse vmeste”, ibid. 24/08.
17
“Soveršenstvovat’ nacional’nuyu politiku”, Udmurtskaya pravda, 1989, 31/10.
18
The region (rayon) of Sharkan is situated in Central-Eastern Udmurtia, and is one of the regions
where the Udmurt population is the most concentrated, for it represents from 75%-85% of the region’s
inhabitants (Seppo Lallukka, op. cit., p. 108).
19
“Soveršenstvovat’ …, op.cit.
20
On this issue, Ponimat’ drug druga. O problemah mezhnacional’nyh otnošenij v Udmurtskoj ASSR.
Sost. K.A. Ponomarev, T.S. Tomšič. (Izhevsk: Udmurtiya, 1990).
21
In Udmurt: “Together”. The following data about the Udmurt national movement come from Rein
Taagepera, op.cit., pp. 313-316.
22
The word Kenesh has a very significant meaning in the Udmurt national culture: it designed until the
Revolution (and practically still in the 1920-ies) the Udmurt form of village self-government. This
national counsel was severely attacked by the Soviet power as a form of class ruling exploiting the
poorer peasants. The word was taboo in the Soviet era, and its returning is deeply symbolic: besindes
the choice of the name for the leading organ of the movement, let us remind that the monthly journal of
the Writer’s Union, called during the Soviet times “Molot” (“hammer”), was very soon renamed
“Kenesh”.
23
On this question: M.I Šiškin, Dva goda v “Keneše” (Izhevsk, 1995).
24
The Russian so-called Democrats use often the term of “national-communism”.
25
Rozaliya Ryvkina, ““Evrejskij vopros” v postsovetskoj Rossii”, Segodnya, 1996, 8/05. The author of
this article writes: “In itself, the development of nationalism by the peoples having formerly lived in the
USSR is natural and regular, as national identities were ignored. All the inhabitants were considered as
members of the same community, the Soviet people, in front of which all were equals. Especially if we
take into account that, according to the official Marxism, national differences were supposed to
disappear little by little. Therefore, a healthy nationalism during the period of the USSR’s splitting is a
natural phenomenon…”
26
Interview to Wjačeslav Kisarev, “Osoboj vrazhdy net”. Gorodskoj stil’, 1996, 11/03.
27
S. Puškina-Blaginina, “My - korennoj narod, a ne nacional’noe men’šinstvo!”. Udmurtskaya pravda
1996, 3/09.
28
Vyačeslav Kisarev,. … minus russkie. Gorodskoj stil’ 1996, 17/06.
29
Ibid.
30
E. Šumilov, “Zapros “finno-ugram” ot indoevropejca”, Udmurtsakaya pravda, 1992, 10.08, quoted
in P. Černov, “Osvešenie nacional’nogo voprosa v sredstvah massovoj informacii Udmurtii”, Finnougorskie narody i Rossiya (Tallinn: Institut Jaana Tõnissona, 1994), str. 110.
31
As in Ju. Jakovkin’s article: “”Dzhinn” iz parlamentskogo “kuwšina””, Udmurtskaya pravda, 1991,
17/10.
32
Ibid..
33
Yu.Yakovkin, “”Dzhinn” pokazyvaet harakter”, Udmurtskaya pravda, 1991, 19/10.
34
Vyasčeslav Kisarev, “Bezymyannyj pogos”, Gorodskoj stil’, 1996, 11/03.
35
Al’bert Razin, “Az’lanezly oskysa”, Keneš, 1994, N°4, s.49.
36
Pëtr Černov, op. cit. , pp. 105.
37
About this item: K. Ponomarev, “Maly peškytzy syures urdsy?” Udmurt dunne, 1995, 14/01.
38
This argument has been enhanced by the Udmurt scholar and politician K. Kulikov in a brochure :
Komu vygodna ksenofobiya (Izhevsk: UIIYaL UrO RAN, 1996).
39
M. Kokorin, “Ot protivopostavleniya k sblizheniyu”, Udmurtskaya pravda, 1996, 19/08.
40
These Udmurt words mean: “Apartment”, “Dress”, “Perepech” (Udmurt pizza), “Holy wood”.
41
Viktor Šibanov, “Mar vite as’medy az’palan”, Keneš, 1995, N°4, str. 9.
42
The national question presents much milder forms in the countryside, where Russian and Udmurt
peasants share the same kind of everyday life.