Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:44:31.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Continuing with Perm', Turning to Syktyvkar, or Standing on One's Own? The Debate about the Status of the Komi-Permiak Autonomous Okrug

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Seppo Lallukka  and
Liudmila Nikitina
Seppo Lallukka
Affiliation:
Academy of Finland and the Institute for Russian and East European Studies, Finland
Liudmila Nikitina
Affiliation:
Komi-Permiak Branch of the Institute for Language, Literature and History of the Komi Science Center, Russia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 26 February 1925, the Soviet government, or the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, passed a resolution that, in effect, ensured the continuation of the separate development of the southern and the northern Komi, that is, the Komi-Permiaks and the Komi-Zyrians. In more detail, the Presidium decided,

(1) Considering the great territorial distance of the Permiak region from the Komi area, and owing to the lack of mutual economic ties between these two territories, to refuse the request of the Komi autonomous area and representatives of the Permiak population for inclusion of the Permiak region in the Komi area, thus keeping the Permiak region within the Urals province. (2) To consider it expedient to make the Permiak region into a special national okrug [that is, national district] with special concise staff and to subordinate the okrug directly to the Executive Committee of the Urals province.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 129 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. S. I. Ponomarev, “Sozdanie natsional'noi gosudarstvennosti komi-permiatskogo naroda i ee rol' v sotsialisticheskikh preobrazovaniiakh kraia,” Trudy Moskovskogo istoriko-arkhivnogo instituta, tom 28 (1970), pp. 426–27.Google Scholar

2. Ust'-Sysol'sk was the capital of the Komi (Zyrian) autonomous area. Since 1930 it bears the Komi name Syktyvkar.Google Scholar

3. In connection with an administrative-territorial arrangement, at the beginning of 1924, Perm' province became a part of a large Urals province with its center in Ekaterinburg. Perm' province re-emerged in 1938 as a separate unit.Google Scholar

4. Smith, Jeremy, “Delimiting National Space: the Ethnographical Principle in the Administrative Division of the RSFSR and USSR, 1918–1925,” in ed. Jeremy Smith, Beyond the Limits: The Concept of Space in Russian History and Culture, Studia Historica, Vol. 62 (Helsinki: Suomen Historiallinen Seura, 1999), pp. 249–58.Google Scholar

5. Slezkine, Yuri, “The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism,” Slavic Review, Vol. 53, No. 2, 1994, pp. 414–23; Smith, “Delimiting National Space,” pp. 243–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. See, for example, Connor, Walker, The National Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 302–03.Google Scholar

7. Slezkine, “The USSR as a Communal Apartment,” pp. 427–30; Francine Hirsch, “The Soviet Union as a Work-in-Progress: Ethnographers and the Category Nationality in the 1926, 1937, and 1939 Censuses,” Slavic Review, Vol. 56, No. 2, 1997, pp. 251–60.Google Scholar

8. Schwartz, Lee, “Regional Population Redistribution and National Homelands in the USSR,” in ed. Henry R. Huttenbach, Soviet Nationality Policies. Ruling Ethnic Groups in the USSR (London: Mansell, 1990), pp. 130, 140–42.Google Scholar

9. Ibid., pp. 131, 160–61. The 1926 census recorded a total of 149,500 Komi-Permiaks; 78.6% of them were residents of the Komi-Permiak Okrug. The proportion of the titular nationality in the okrug reached 77.0% of the entire population. The composite number of Komi-Zyrians was 226,400, and 84.5% of them were found in the Komi (Zyrian) autonomous area, where this nationality accounted for 92.2% of total population. See Vsesoiuznaia perepis' naseleniia 1926 goda (Moscow: Tsentral'noe statisticheskoe upravlenie SSSR, 1928-29), Vol. 1, table 9, Vol. 4, table 9, Vol. 17, table 6. For the developments in the population composition of these autonomous units, see Seppo Lallukka, Komipermjakit—perämaan kansa (Helsinki: Venäjän ja Itä-Euroopan instituutti, 1995a), pp. 81–97, and Paul J. W. Fryer, Elites, Language and Education in the Komi Ethnic Revival (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1998), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

10. For summaries of the issue of organizing Komi-Permiak autonomy in the 1920s, see K. I. Kulikov, Natsional'no-gosudarstvennoe stroitel'stvo vostochno-finskikh narodov v 1917–1937 gg. (Izhevsk: Udmurtskii IIaLI RAN, 1993), pp. 102–13; Lallukka, op. cit. (1995a), pp. 38–46.Google Scholar

11. Obrazovanie Komi avtonomnoi oblasti (Syktyvkar: Komi knizhnoe izd-vo, 1971), pp. 66–67.Google Scholar

12. M. P. Dmitrikov, “K voprosu o konsolidatsii komi,” Istoriia i kul'tura komi-permiatskogo naroda v shkol'noi programme (Kudymkar: Upravlenie obrazovaniia Komi-Permiatskogo avt. okruga, 1993), p. 89; L. I. Vavilin, “K voprosu o pervykh shagakh natsional'noi gosudarstvennosti komi-permiakov,” Istoriia i kul'tura komi-permiatskogo naroda v shkol'noi programme (Kudymkar: Upravlenie obrazovaniia Komi-Permiatskogo avt. okruga, 1993), p. 12.Google Scholar

13. F. G. Tarakanov, Bor'ba za okrug (Kudymkar: Permskoe knizhnoe izd-vo, Komi-Permiatskoe otdelenie, 1990), pp. 8, 21; Dmitrikov, “K voprosu o konsolidatsii komi,” p. 89; A. Kon'shin and N. Mitiusheva, “Ob”edinennaia Respublika Komi,“ Molodezh' Severa, 4 December 1997, p. 7.Google Scholar

14. D. A. Batiev, “K trekhletiiu Avtonomnoi Oblasti Komi,” Komi mu, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1924a, pp. 3–4; Obrazovanie Komi avtonomnoi oblasti (1971), op. cit., pp. 127–28.Google Scholar

15. D. A. Batiev, “K voprosu ob ob”edinenii vsego naroda komi,“ Komi mu, Vol. 1, No. 4-6, 1924b, p. 6; V. N. Epikhin, ”Maloizvestnye stranitsy istorii ob“edineniia komi-zyrian i komi-permiakov (1921-1929 gg.),” Istoriia i kul'tura komi-permiatskogo naroda v shkol'noi programme (Kudymkar: Upravlenie obrazovaniia Komi-Permiatskogo avt. okruga, 1993), p. 16.Google Scholar

16. Komi-Permiatskii natsional'nyi okrug. Istoricheskie ocherki (Perm': Permskoe knizhnoe izd-vo, 1977), p. 103.Google Scholar

17. Epikhin, “Maloizvestnye stranitsy istorii,” p. 16; Vavilin, “K voprosu o pervykh shagakh,” pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

18. Epikhin, “Maloizvestnye stranitsy istorii,” p. 17.Google Scholar

19. Vavilin, “K voprosu o pervykh shagakh,” p. 13.Google Scholar

20. Batiev (1924b), “K voprosu ob ob”edinenii,“ pp. 7–10; Ia. Pasiutin and N. Shakhov, ”Permiatskii krai,“ Komi mu, Vol. 1, No. 7-10, 1924, pp. 17, 20, 25-29; F. P. Chukichev, ”O Severo-Ekaterinskom kanale,“ Komi mu, Vol. 2, No. 8, 1925, pp. 26–29; Kulikov, op. cit., pp. 93–94.Google Scholar

21. Tarakanov, op. cit., p. 26; Epikhin, “Maloizvestnye stranitsy istorii,” pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

22. Tarakanov, op. cit., p. 26.Google Scholar

23. Ibid., pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

24. Pasiutin and Shakhov, “Permiatskii krai,” pp. 29–30; Ponomarev, “Sozdanie natsional'noi gosudarstvennosti,” pp. 425–26; Dmitrikov, “K voprosu o konsolidatsii komi,” p. 89.Google Scholar

25. Ponomarev, “Sozdanie natsional'noi gosudarstvennosti,” p. 426; Kon'shin and Mitiusheva, “Ob”edinennaia Respublika Komi.“Google Scholar

26. Lallukka (1995a), op. cit., pp. 44–45.Google Scholar

27. Kulikov, op. cit., pp. 243–44; Iu. A. Moiseevskikh, “Istoricheskii put' i osnovnye napravleniia razvitiia komi-permiatskoi natsional'noi shkoly,” Istoriia i kul'tura komi-permiatskogo naroda v shkol'noi programme (Kudymkar: Upravlenie obrazovaniia Komi-Permiatskogo avt. okruga, 1993), pp. 167–68; V. M. Poleshchikov, Za sem'iu pechatiami. Iz arkhiva KGB (Syktyvkar: Komi knizhnoe izd-vo, 1995), pp. 6–7, 127-56, 161, 186.Google Scholar

28. Most specialists in Finno-Ugrian language studies outside Russia hold the view that there are no sound linguistic reasons why the two Komi varieties should be considered distinct languages. Rather they represent the main dialectal stocks of a larger Komi language. See, Robin Baker, The Development of the Komi Case System. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, Vol. 189 (Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, 1985), p. 8; Péter Hajdú and Péter Domokos, Die uralischen Sprachen und Literaturen (Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1987), p. 67; Atilla Dobo, “Iazyk komi kak unifitsirovannyi literaturnyi iazyk,” Linguistica, Series A, Vol. 17 (Budapest, 1995), p. 101. For an overview of language policies pertaining to Komi-Permiak see also Seppo Lallukka, “Below the Republican Level: Political Origins and Social Status of the Literary Komi-Permiak Language,” in ed. J. A. Dunn, Language and Society in Post-Communist Europe (Houndmills: Macmillan, 1999), pp. 47–69.Google Scholar

29. For an overview of cultural development, see Lyudmila Nikitina, “Permian Komis,” Inf (Information Bulletin of the Association of Finno-Ugric Literatures), No. 2, 1996, pp. 64–68.Google Scholar

30. M. Chechulin, “Chetyre goda Komi-Permiatskogo okruga,” Komi mu, Vol. 6, No. 7, 1929, pp. 38–43; A. Kon'shin and V. Deriabin, “Komi-permiaki: proshloe, nastoiashchee, budushchee,” Parma, 27 June 1992, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

31. For more about the economy and demography of the okrug, see Jarmo Eronen, “Venäläinen ja suomalainen periferia: Permin Komin ja Kainuun aluetaloudellista vertailua,” Bank of Finland, Review of Economies in Transition, No. 9, 1993, pp. 19–46; Lallukka (1995a), op. cit., pp. 46–49, 67-81; Seppo Lallukka, “Territorial and Demographic Foundations of Komi-Permiak Nationality,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1995b, pp. 353–71; Rein Taagepera, The Finno-Ugric Republics and the Russian State (London: Hurst, 1999), pp. 319–36; Komi-Permiatskii avtonomnyi okrug na rubezhe vekov (Kudymkar: Komi-Permiatskoe knizhnoe izd-vo, 2000), pp. 69–75.Google Scholar

32. Cf. Stein Rokkan and Derek W. Urwin, Economy, Territory, Identity. Politics of West European Peripheries (London: Sage, 1983), p. 30.Google Scholar

33. As a result of the trilateral treaty of 1996 between the federal center, Perm' province, and the Komi-Permiak Okrug, the province has started to finance the construction of a road between Kosa and Solikamsk. See Petr Pliev, “Komi-Permiatskii AO pered vyborami,” Nezavisimaia gazeta, 3 October 1996, p. 3; Nikolai Ivanov, “Nikolai Poluianov: ‘stav nezavisimymi, my vyigrali’,” NG-regiony, supplement to Nezavisimaia gazeta, 11 January 2000, p. 12.Google Scholar

34. Cf. Michael Hechter, Internal Colonialism. The Celtic Fringe in British National Development, 1536–1966 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975), pp. 8–10, 30-43.Google Scholar

35. V. Delidov, “O statuse Parmy,” Po leninskomu puti, 27 September 1990, p. 1; “Sessiia okruzhnogo soveta,” Po leninskomu puti, 13 October 1990; “Deklaratsiia o suverenitete Komi-Permiatskoi avtonomnoi oblasti,” Po leninskomu puti, 17 October 1990, p. 1; L. Nadymov, “Skol'ko suverennosti perevarim?” Po leninskomu puti, 18 October 1990, p. 1; “Okrug? Oblast'? Respublika?” Po leninskomu puti, 12 November 1990, p. 2.Google Scholar

36. “Obrashchenie predstavitelei natsional'noi intelligentsii—storonnikov demokraticheskogo dvizheniia k zhiteliam okruga,” Po leninskomu puti, 20 November 1990.Google Scholar

37. A. Bakhmatov, “I ovtsy tsely, i volki syty!” Po leninskomu puti, 31 October 1990; V. Deriabin, “Suverenitet i rynok,” Po leninskomu puti, 20 November 1990; V. Deriabin, “Vstrecha opponentov,” Po leninskomu puti, 24 November 1990.Google Scholar

38. “Vernulis' ni s chem,” Po leninskomu puti, 1 December 1990; “Protest s tribuny s”ezda,“ Po leninskomu puti, 5 December 1990.Google Scholar

39. “Sessiia okruzhnogo soveta,” Po leninskomu puti, 19 April 1991.Google Scholar

40. “Iz resheniia Permskogo oblispolkoma ‘O merakh pu uskoreniiu sotsial'no-ekonomicheskogo razvitiia Komi-Permiatskogo avtonomnogo okruga v 1991–1995 gody’,” Po leninskomu puti, 5 July 1991; I. Botalov, “Po sosedstvu my zhivem …,” Parma, 12 October 1993, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

41. Until September 1991, the paper bore the name Po leninskomu puti.Google Scholar

42. Lallukka (1995a), op. cit., p. 156.Google Scholar

43. Fryer, op. cit., p. 18.Google Scholar

44. I. Bobrakov, “Po sosedstvu my zhivem …,” Parma, 18 March 1992, pp. 2–3. Originally Bobrakov's article appeared in Vechernii Syktyvkar on 3 December 1991.Google Scholar

45. I. Nadutkin, “Ob”edinim komi narod,“ Parma, 14 April 1992, p. 2.Google Scholar

46. See, “Tuivezh. Ködörö munny,” Parma, 18 February 1992, p. 3; A. Istomina, “Ötlaasiam, komi vonnez, Biarmiiao,” Parma, 14 April 1992, p. 3; V. Vilesov, “Chuzhoi motiv k rodnym slovam,” Parma, 29 April 1992, pp. 1–2; V. Kon'shina, “Chuzhoe mnenie nado uvazhat',” Parma, 11 June 1992, pp. 1–2; “Rukovoditel' za uchebnikom,” Parma, 4 July 1992, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

47. A. Istomina, “Stavit' li kleimo ‘natsionalizm‘?” Parma, 1 December 1992, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar

48. See, for instance, Ivan Chetin's address at the Okrug-wide Congress of People's Deputies, Parma, 30 June 1992, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar

49. A. A. Popov and N. A. Nesterova, “S”ezd komi naroda kak institut vyrazheniia spetsifich-eskikh etnicheskikh interesov komi (zyrian i permiakov),“ Komi-Permiatskii okrug i Ural: istoriia i sovremennost' (Kudymkar: Administratisiia Komi-Permiatskogo avt. okruga, 2000), pp. 140–42.Google Scholar

50. Obrashchenie III s“ezda komi naroda k rukovodstvu Respubliki Komi i Komi-Permiatskogo avtonomnogo okruga (Syktyvkar, 4 December 1993, mimeographed).Google Scholar

51. V. Ivanov, “Pervyi tur ‘Belkomur’,” Vechernii Syktyvkar, 13 September 1995; “Est' li budushchee u dogovornogo protsessa sub”ektov Federatsii s tsentrom?“ Rossiiskaia Federatsiia, No. 11, 1996, p. 6; Boris Maiorov, ”Dolgaia doroga k moriu,“ NG-regiony, supplement to Nezavisimaia gazeta, 11 January 2000, p. 13.Google Scholar

52. Kriazhkov, Vladimir, “Status avtonomnykh okrugov: evoliutsiia i problemy,” Rossiiskaia Federatsiia, No. 2, 1996, p. 49.Google Scholar

53. Ob artonomnykh okrugakh RSFSR, Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta RSFSR, No. 48, 1980, pp. 1086, 1090.Google Scholar

54. Cf. Schwartz, “Regional Population Redistribution,” pp. 144, 157.Google Scholar

55. Kriazhkov, “Status avtonomnykh okrugov,” p. 49; “Konstitutsiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii,” Rossiiskie vesti, 25 December 1993. This stipulation of the Russian constitution provided the juridical basis for not assigning the Komi-Permiak language the status of a state language when the charter of the Komi-Permiak Okrug was enacted in 1994. For more details, see Lallukka, “Below the Republican Level,” pp. 62–64.Google Scholar

56. Kriazhkov, “Status avtonomnykh okrugov,” p. 50; Rustam Arifdzhanov and Sergei Chugaev, “Tiumenskii peredel,” Izvestiia, 8 October 1996, p. 2; Ol'ga Romanova, “A u nas v Tiumeni gaz. A u vas?” Segodnia, 16 October 1996, p. 3.Google Scholar

57. Rossiiskaia gazeta, 10 July 1996, p. 3.Google Scholar

58. Parma, 25 September 1992, p. 1.Google Scholar

59. N. Agafonova, “Za khlebom v Ameriku,” Parma, 9 April 1993, pp. 2–3; N. Poluianov, “Kak rabotaem, tak i zhivem,” Parma, 10 June 1994, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

60. “Pust' komissiia rassudit,” Parma, 8 July 1994, p. 1.Google Scholar

61. V. Aleshkov, “Okrugu nuzhna pomoshch',” Parma, 21 September 1994, p. 1; Unpublished letter entitled “O rezul'tatakh oznakomleniia s sostoianiem ekonomicheskogo polozheniia Komi-Permiatskogo avtonomnogo okruga” from the vice-minister of finance S. A. Korolev, head of the commission, to the federal government, 20 September 1994.Google Scholar

62. Pliev, “Komi-Permiatskii AO.”Google Scholar

63. Agafonova, “Za khlebom v Ameriku.”Google Scholar

64. Dogovor o razgranichenii predmetov vedeniia i polnomochii mezhdu organami vlasti i upravleniia Permskoi oblasti i Komi-Permiatskogo avtonomnogo okruga, p. 12.Google Scholar

65. “Est' li budushchee,” pp. 30, 31.Google Scholar

66. Lallukka (1995a), op. cit., pp. 145–46; “Est' li budushchee,” p. 31.Google Scholar

67. Poluianov, “Kak rabotaem, tak i zhivem.”Google Scholar

68. Parma, 11 June 1996.Google Scholar

69. Pliev, “Komi-Permiatskii AO.”Google Scholar

70. Ibid.Google Scholar

71. Derbenev, Viktor, “Eto sladkoe slovo—‘svoboda’,” NG-regiony, supplement to Nezavisimaia gazeta, 11 January 2000 (Typewritten copy of the official treaty, Perm' : Administration of Perm' province, 1992).Google Scholar

72. Ivanov, Nikolai, “Nikolai Poluianov.”; EastWest Institute, Russian Regional Bulletin, No. 7, 2000 (http://www.iews.org/rrrabout.nsf/pages/rrb+page).Google Scholar

73. See, V. N. Ivanov, “Konfliktogennye faktory i problemy mezhnatsional'nykh otnoshenii,” Etnichnost'. Natsional'nye dvizheniia. Sotsial'naia praktika (Sankt-Peterburg: Petropolis, 1995), p. 88; Kriazhkov, “Status avtonomnykh okrugov,” p. 50.Google Scholar

74. Kalashnikova, Marina, “Regional'nye sliianiia?” Nezavisimaia gazeta, 25 July 2000, p. 3.Google Scholar